You are on page 1of 76

AP-T97/08

Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.

AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT
Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration
(RD) Model Calibrations for
Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads

Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model
Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for
Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads
First Published May 2008

© Austroads Inc. 2008
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for
Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads

Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.

ISBN 978-1-921329-56-2
Austroads Project No. AT1064
Austroads Publication No. AP–T97/08

Project Manager
Ian Hickson
Prepared by
Zahidul Hoque, Dr Tim Martin and Lith Choummanivong

Published by Austroads Incorporated
Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au

Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.

Storage.Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. distribution or use on network prohibited. Personal use licence only. Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Sydney 2008 .

. advice and fostering research in the road sector. distribution or use on network prohibited. It is governed by a council consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member organisations: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales Roads Corporation Victoria Department of Main Roads Queensland Main Roads Western Australia Department for Transport. Personal use licence only. Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic authorities and the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services in Australia. Regional Development and Local Government Australian Local Government Association Transit New Zealand The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in the road industry. Transport. Storage. Energy and Infrastructure South Australia Department of Infrastructure. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information. the Australian Local Government Association and Transit New Zealand.Austroads profile Austroads’ purpose is to contribute to improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by: ƒ providing expert advice to SCOT and ATC on road and road transport issues ƒ facilitating collaboration between road agencies ƒ promoting harmonisation. consistency and uniformity in road and related operations ƒ undertaking strategic research on behalf of road agencies and communicating outcomes ƒ promoting improved and consistent practice by road agencies. Energy and Resources Tasmania Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Territory Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory Department of Infrastructure. Austroads membership Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.

Victorian road network A total of 55 asphalt and sprayed seal pavement sections were used for RD model calibration in Victoria based on their observed deterioration using the objective estimation approach outlined above. traffic loading and climate conditions. A detailed description of the calibration procedure is presented in this report. to develop reliable calibrations for HDM-4 road deterioration (RD) models in Australasia. distribution or use on network prohibited. Pavement deterioration data for sealed granular and asphalt roads in the LTPP database are currently insufficient. pavement type. South Australia. Rutting and roughness RD models were calibrated for all these SRAs. Queensland and New Zealand. Cracking RD models were calibrated for South Australia due to the reasonable quality of its cracking data. These calibrated HDM-4 RD models can be either refined or simplified when new data from the existing and the additional LTPP sites become available. These sections were grouped according to road type. HDM-4 RD models were calibrated to suit conditions in Victoria. Storage. The objective approach to estimate the underlying rate of pavement deterioration was developed by another Austroads project using a set of decision rules to eliminate data noise and the effect of maintenance or rehabilitation treatments on deterioration. Mean values of the calibrated coefficients (Krst and Kgm) were estimated for each group of pavements. although the quality of this SRA data is not as good as the LTPP data. hence cracking models were not calibrated for the data from these authorities. Tasmania.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads SUMMARY Background and Scope Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. rutting. SRAs supplied historical roughness and rutting deterioration data and some supplied cracking deterioration data and maintenance history. to be considered in the analysis. Cracking data from Victoria. SRA data from some states were used to calibrate HDM-4 RD models which should improve the reliability of deterioration predictions for the State and New Zealand road networks in which the RD model calibrations were made. in terms of the variation in the values of the variables. except Queensland. Austroads 2008 — i— . Consequently. wide ranging historical deterioration data from the state and New Zealand road authority (SRA) networks are available. The development of generic RD models for roughness. Tasmania and New Zealand were either of inadequate quality or too insignificant. in terms of extent of cracking. The results from the current RD model calibration were compared with the values obtained from a previous calibration study. This report documents the calibration of HDM-4 RD models for sealed granular and asphalt pavements based on SRA historical deterioration data. The mean values of the calibration coefficients derived from the current and previous studies were on average comparable. Findings An objective approach to estimating the underlying rate of deterioration from a time series of deterioration data was used to represent the observed deterioration which was then matched with the RD model predicted rate of deterioration to calibrate the RD models. Personal use licence only. However. although the current study generally estimated lower mean values compared to those from the previous study. cracking and deflection is expected to commence during 2007-08 to enable wider application of these models.

000.39. the calibration of all the 14. distribution or use on network prohibited. The calibration coefficients for cracking. practically nil for cracking.45). traffic loading and climatic conditions.13. the selected sections were grouped according to road type. Personal use licence only. road network were calibrated by this study. South Australian road network Of the 129. The correlation between the calibration coefficient K values and the estimated rate of deterioration was high for rutting (r2 = 0. the results from the current calibration study showed an improved correlation compared to the results from the previous calibration study. The correlation coefficients (r2) from the current study between the estimated rates of deterioration and the K values were greater than 0. only 14. Similar to the Victorian network.000 pavement sections with deterioration data available. it may be possible to estimate the deterioration of all individual pavement sections in a large road network so that the mean calibration coefficient K values for various groups of roads could be estimated more accurately. traffic loading and climatic conditions prior to calibration. and reasonable for roughness (r2 = 0. With future improvements in computational capacity and an efficient deterioration algorithm.765 sections was not undertaken. in terms of road and pavement type. Energy and Resources (DIER). Of these. It should be noted that these K values are applicable to pavement sections whose characteristics. rutting and roughness and these were used in the current study. Austroads 2008 — ii — .89). while the correlation coefficients (r2) for the previous study were less than 0. while those from the previous study were only 0. Tasmanian road network A total of 58 pavement sections from the Department of Infrastructure. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. pavement type. Queensland road network Roughness deterioration. traffic loading and climate condition in order to estimate and compare mean calibration coefficient (K) values from the current calibration study with those from a previous calibration study. The mean values of observed and predicted deterioration for each group of pavements were estimated or assumed and calibration was based on these mean values. were made available by the Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR) for the study. Instead. A comparison of the mean K values for each group of pavements indicated that the current study generally yielded lower K values compared to the K values from the previous study. (2) deterioration identified and estimated by the principles and decision rules of the underlying rate of deterioration approach outlined above. Tasmania. and. traffic and inventory data for over 28. Storage. pavement sections were grouped in terms of road type. more than 5300 sections had satisfied the selection criteria which included the following: (1) traffic with AADT less than 5.82. The current study estimated lower K values (Krst and Kgm) because the observed rates of deterioration were estimated to be lower. Krst and Kgm) for each group of South Australian pavements are presented in this report.765 sections were estimated to be experiencing deterioration concurrently with cracking. are similar to the mean values used to group the pavement sections. rutting and roughness (Kgm. The calibration results from the current study were good because the correlation between the calibration K values and the estimated rates of deterioration was high. each 1 km in length.600 pavement sections. Because of limited computational capacity.66. The correlation coefficients (r2) between the calibration values and the estimated rates of deterioration for the revised method were greater than 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads When comparing the calibration coefficient (K) values with the estimated rate of pavement deterioration. pavement type.

rutting and. The calibration coefficients for rutting and roughness (Krst and Kgm) were plotted against and correlated with their corresponding estimated rates of deterioration. RD models were calibrated only for rutting and roughness using input data from the individual sections. Austroads 2008 — iii — . The correlation between the calibration coefficients and the estimated rates of observed deterioration was usually strong. Tasmania. South Australia and Queensland ƒ estimation of calibration coefficients for roughness and rutting for the State Highway network in New Zealand. generally less than the HDM-4 default value of 1. cracking for road networks in Victoria. The correlation between group means of the estimated rate of deterioration and the K values was reasonable (r2 = 0. As each lane was treated independently. cracking and deflection were collected either from each lane of a twolane two-way road or from one of the lanes on a divided carriageway. were used as input data for calibration. where possible. The following outcomes were achieved: ƒ estimation of calibration coefficients for roughness. A large data set from 63 pavement sections. produced a range of calibration coefficient. Conclusions The objective approach used to estimate the observed deterioration from SRA data allows the calibration of RD models based on the underlying pavement deterioration. rutting. With future improvements in computational capacity and an efficient deterioration algorithm. indicating that the calibration approach produced reliable estimates. Consequently.5) given that there was some reduction in the quality of input data due to using mean values of deterioration. the total number of lane sections available for the analysis increased to 124. was provided by Transit New Zealand (TNZ). New Zealand State Highway network Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. As for the Australian states. Storage. It was found that 54 of the 124 sections showed concurrent increases in rutting and roughness whereas only a small number of sections were experiencing cracking deterioration. The roughness calibration of 57 section groups.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Due to the large number of sections representing the network. Findings The calibration of a range of HDM-4 RD models was completed using all the data made available by the SRAs in 2005/06 and 2006/07. each 300 m in length and monitored on a yearly basis to date. traffic loading and climate conditions. the selection of pavement sections for calibration was based on the estimation of underlying rate of deterioration to represent the observed deterioration. the number of sections for the calibration study was reduced by grouping the sections based on the usual criteria of road type.85 for rutting and roughness respectively). based on the mean values of estimated and predicted deterioration.70 and 0. Group mean values of observed and predicted deterioration.0. The correlation between the calibration coefficients and the estimated rates of deterioration was strong (r2 = 0. indicating that the calibration approach produced reliable estimates. Personal use licence only. pavement type. K values. Performance data from 2001 to 2005 including roughness. it may be possible to calibrate all individual pavement sections in a large road network so that the mean calibration coefficient K values for various groups of roads can be estimated more accurately. distribution or use on network prohibited. not the values of individual sections.

..........................................2...................................... 19 4..............................2 2................. 36 4..3.............1 Road Sections for RD Model Calibration .......1 Road Sections for RD Model Calibration .............6..1 Background. 22 4................................ 2 2..................................4........................................................6 Austroads 2008 — iv — .................................................................................4 Calibration Results.........3 Background......................2 Performance History .................. CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........3..............................2 1..................... 2 Calibration Factors............... distribution or use on network prohibited.....5 4........1 4.....2........... 35 4...............................2.....2 Performance History ..........................6...........................................................................4........................2 Scope of Calibration ................................2 Calibration Procedure .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 4..............................3 Maintenance Intervention ................................................................................. 5 2......................................................................... 6 2..........................................................3..................................................2....................................................4............ Personal use licence only................................................................................................................1 3....................4 Calibration Results.............. 1 Report Structure ............................................................................. 36 4......................................................................................... 8 3................................................ 30 New Zealand State Highway Network .....1 Road Sections Considered for RD Model Calibration.4 4........................ 14 4......................................................... 15 4................................................................................3 Maintenance Intervention .............................. 9 4 CALIBRATION OF RD MODELS ..4................................................3 Rutting Models and K Factors ............ 22 Queensland Road Network...................................................................... 11 4...........3 Maintenance Intervention ...1 Road Sections Considered for RD Model Calibration........................................... 3 RD Models .............................................................................. 1 2 HDM-4 ROAD DETERIORATION (RD) MODELS ...............................................................2 Performance History ...1 2............................ 15 4.................... 13 4..................................... 27 4.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 4.............Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008................................. 27 4.......... 6 3 METHOD OF RD MODEL CALIBRATION ....... 14 4........................................................................... 8 Calibration Approach ...................................................................................................2 Previous Calibration...5.2 Performance History ............... 4 2....................... 22 4.........................................................4............................................... 1 1.... 13 Tasmanian Road Network ..................................................2..................................................................................... 2 Distress Modes .........................2...........4 Background of HDM-4 RD Models ..............4 Calibration Results.2 Cracking Models and K Factors.. 12 4...............................4 Roughness Models and K Factors...6............ Storage............................ 19 4.... 8 3..............1 Assumptions ...3 2..............4.........................5.............. 9 3................... 27 4......................................................................................................................................................5......2 Performance History ................................... 36 4............4.........................................................4.................................................3.................1 1.... 1 Scope of this Report ......................4 Calibration Results............. 16 South Australian Road Network......................6......................................1 Road Sections for RD Model Calibration .......................3 4....................5.............. 11 4..................3 Maintenance Intervention ...................3 Maintenance Intervention .................... 4 2...... 27 4.4 Calibration Results....... 11 Victorian Road Network ............................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................7........... Personal use licence only...7....................................7....................................... 59 Austroads 2008 — v— ........................... 43 5 WORK SUMMARY............................................................... distribution or use on network prohibited. CLASSIFICATIONS AND DETERIORATION MODELS...........................7........................................................................ 45 Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008........................3 South Australian Road Network..................................... REFERENCES .......................7 Summary of Calibration Factors ................. 45 6...................................... 41 4.....................................................................................................6 Comparison of Calibration Factors ....................... 42 4........................ 44 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION .2 Tasmanian Road Network ........................................................................................................ 47 APPENDIX B ESTIMATION OF UNDERLYING RATE OF DETERIORATION.................4 Queensland Road Network.........................7............ 41 4.............................................. 46 APPENDIX A HDM-4 PAVEMENT CODES....... 41 4....................................................................... Storage.....5 New Zealand State Highway Network ............................... 41 4....7.............................. 45 Recommendation..............................2 Conclusions .....................................1 6.......................1 Victorian Road Network .. 42 4...Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 4.......

..................................... 24 Characteristics of the Queensland pavement sections considered for analysis...........................................................................................................6: Table 4.............3: Figure 4.................1: Table 2..................................................................2: Table 4.............. 18 Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for South Australian road network...........2: Figure 4.. distribution or use on network prohibited........ 31 Characteristics of the New Zealand pavement section groups for analysis.............................1: Table 4............................... 16 Calibration results for the pavement sections in Tasmania ..........................4: Table 4................................................. 35 Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for New Zealand State Highway network ................. Table 4........ 14 Relationship between rates of deterioration and RD model coefficients for the Tasmanian road network .......................................................................................9: Table 4.........................3: Table 4.................... 2 Effect of pavement classification on deterioration models .. Storage........................ 4 Characteristics of Victorian pavement sections considered for analysis .. 20 Calibration results for the pavement groups in South Australia ......................................................1: Types of distress and independent variables .............. 5 Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for the Victorian road network ............. 12 Calibration results for pavement sections in Victoria ...................5: Deterioration phases of sealed granular pavements .................................... 26 Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for Queensland road network..................................... 13 Characteristics of the Tasmanian pavement sections considered for analysis....................................................................7: Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008........................... Personal use licence only..1: Figure 4..................................1: Figure 4. 39 Summary of HDM-4 RD calibration results .............................................................. 40 Austroads 2008 — vi — .....8: Table 4.....10: Table 5...................................... 17 Characteristics of the South Australian pavement sections considered for analysis........... 3 Calibration factors used in the deterioration models........................................................ 28 Calibration results of the pavement groups in Queensland .........Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads TABLES Table 2........... 44 FIGURES Figure 2....................................................................3: Table 4................4: Figure 4...................2: Table 2.....................5: Table 4............................... 38 Calibration results for the pavement groups for the New Zealand road network ...

These calibrations were based on an approach (Martin and Hoque 2006) that aimed at assessing the underlying rate of deterioration from the time series of SRA supplied deterioration data to represent the observed deterioration experienced on specific pavement segments. South Australia. summary of the previous interim RD calibration report. These rates of deterioration were then matched with those predicted by the RD models on specific pavement segments to calibrate the RD models. in terms of the variation in the values of the variables. 1. Pavement deterioration data for sealed granular and asphalt roads in the LTPP database are currently insufficient. wide ranging historical deterioration data from the state and New Zealand road authority (SRA) networks are available.3 Report Structure The report contains the following major parts: ƒ Introduction – provides background. However. to develop reliable calibrations for HDM-4 RD models in Australasia. SRAs supplied roughness and rutting data and some supplied cracking and maintenance history. 1. South Australian and Tasmanian road networks based on deterioration data provided by each of these SRAs (Hoque and Martin 2006b). The calibrated HDM-4 RD models can be either refined or simplified when new data from the existing and the additional LTPP sites becomes available. Personal use licence only. Tasmania.2 Scope of this Report This report documents the calibration of the HDM-4 RD models for sealed granular and asphalt pavements based on historical deterioration data supplied by SRAs. although the quality of this SRA data is not as good as the LTPP data. SRA data from some states may therefore be used to calibrate HDM-4 RD models which should improve the reliability of deterioration predictions for the state and New Zealand road networks in which the RD model calibrations can be made. objectives and scope ƒ HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Models – provides an overview of HDM-4 RD models ƒ Calibration method – provides details of the improved calibration procedure ƒ Calibration results – provides calibration results and analysis ƒ Conclusions – provides general conclusions of the investigation and recommends methodology to use in the future. In 2005/06 calibration of HDM-4 RD models was undertaken for Victorian. Austroads 2008 — 1— . In 2004/05. distribution or use on network prohibited. Storage.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Queensland and New Zealand was made available to ARRB via either related projects or supplied directly. The time series deterioration data on sealed granular and asphalt pavement segments in the road networks for Victoria. the interim calibration of HDM-4 RD models was undertaken for sealed granular pavements in the Victorian road network (Hoque and Martin 2005). There is a need for improved road deterioration (RD) models for the sealed and asphalt road network to reliably predict future pavement conditions due to changes in traffic loading and maintenance strategies.1 Background Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.

Table 2. the Caribbean. 2. The statistical relationships were validated and extended using data from several other deterioration studies such as those from Kenya. 2. Table 2. Analytical Framework and Model Descriptions (Odoki and Kerali 2000) ƒ HDM-4 Volume 6. distribution or use on network prohibited.2 Distress Modes The types of deterioration of a sealed granular pavement can be categorised into cracking. Some SRAs have engaged ARRB to conduct separate studies to calibrate these RD models to suit their local conditions (Martin et al.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 2 HDM-4 ROAD DETERIORATION (RD) MODELS HDM-4 RD models are considered to be robust and are increasingly being adopted by many SRAs. traffic loading and environment. Modelling Road Deterioration and Works Effect (Morosiuk. Personal use licence only. longitudinal profile and friction. The HDM-III models were statistically estimated from data collected during a multi-year empirical study carried out in Brazil (GEIPOT. An international collaborative study known as ‘The International Study of Highway Development and Management (ISOHDM)’ was initiated in 1993 to extend the scope of the HDM-III models. etc. surface disintegration. The development of these modes of deterioration can be dependent on a number of factors which are broadly classed as pavement strength. material properties. Texas. permanent deformation. Storage. India. 1982).1 Background of HDM-4 RD Models Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.1: Types of distress and independent variables Distress mode Cracking Disintegration Distress type Pavement strength Materials properties Traffic loading Environment Structural √ √ √ √ Reflection √ Transverse thermal √ Ravelling √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Texture depth √ √ Skid resistance √ √ Potholing √ Rutting – surface wear Edge break Deformation Profile Friction √ Rutting – structural Rutting – plastic flow Roughness Austroads 2008 — 2— √ . The revised and improved models are known as HDM-4 RD models and are described in detail in: ƒ HDM-4 Volume 4. Riley and Odoki 2001). 2006). An overview of these models is presented in the following sub-sections.1 shows the distress types which are modelled and the independent variables which are used in the deterioration models.

to 2. Austroads 2008 — 3— . twice as fast as that predicted by the default calibration of HDM-4.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads HDM-4 Volume 4 (Odoki and Kerali 2000) introduced the system of pavement classification used in HDM-4 (Appendix A). Profile Friction Base type Transverse thermal C Ravelling C Potholing Rutting – surface wear Edge break Deformation Surfacing type C Rutting – structural Rutting – plastic flow C C C Roughness Texture depth C Skid resistance C S – structure of model may change by pavement type C – coefficients of model may change by pavement type 2. another important addition to the RD models in HDM-4 is the use of adjustable model coefficient values. base type or a combination of both (pavement type). Calibration is discussed in more detail in Volume 5 of the HDM-4 series – A Guide to Calibration and Adaptation (Bennett and Paterson 2000). Instead a default value has been assigned to each of these model coefficients.3 Calibration Factors The RD models include a number of calibration factors to facilitate calibration of the RD models to local conditions.0 implies that the pavement will deteriorate. By increasing the value of Kcia to 2. which the user can alter. In HDM-4.2 summarises these relationships.0. in terms of the rate of crack progression. the time to the initiation of all structural cracking is doubled.3. In addition to an increased number of calibration factors. Table 2. Storage. In other cases the model structure is the same for all types of surfacing and base. increasing the calibration factor for the progression of all structural cracking. Personal use licence only. distribution or use on network prohibited. For example. These factors are multiplicative and are used to change the scale of a particular distress. The structure of a model used to predict the initiation or progression of a certain distress may be governed by surface type. The default value for all the ‘K’ factors is 1. Table 2. The calibration factors are denoted by the letter ‘K’ together with identifying subscripts given in Table 2. In other cases the model structure and default coefficients are independent of both surfacing and base types. the ai values for the variables in each relationship are not hard coded into the software. Kcpa. implying that the pavement will last longer before cracks appear than that predicted by a default calibration of HDM-4. Kcia is the calibration factor for the initiation of all structural cracking in bituminous pavements. Similarly.2: Effect of pavement classification on deterioration models Distress mode Distress type Structural S S Cracking Reflection C C Disintegration Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. referred to as the ‘ai’ values.0. but the default model coefficients are dependent on surfacing or base type.

the initial densification phase.4. 2001) and are explained below: ƒ The initial densification phase is the short period between just after opening to traffic and initial settlement.1. ƒ In the gradual deterioration phase pavements are assumed to be in stable condition and thus the rate of deterioration is expected to be gradual and linear.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 2. distribution or use on network prohibited.1 Background Accelerated load testing on sealed granular pavements in South Africa (Freeme 1983) indicated three distinct phases of deterioration as illustrated in Figure 2.3: Calibration factors used in the deterioration models Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Storage.4 RD Models 2. These deterioration phases. i. ƒ The rapid deterioration phase starts at the end of the gradual phase when pavement condition deteriorates at a faster rate and leads to the onset of failure. Personal use licence only. (2001) 2. were also identified in HDM-4 (Morosiuk et al. Deterioration model Calibration factor Wet/dry season SNP ratio Kf Drainage factor Kddf All structural cracking – initiation Kcia Wide structural cracking – initiation Kciw All structural cracking – progression Kcpa Wide structural cracking – progression Kcpw Transverse thermal cracking – initiation Kcit Transverse thermal cracking – progression Kcpt Rutting – initial densification Krid Rutting – structural deterioration Krst Rutting – plastic deformation Krpd Rutting – surface wear Krsw Ravelling – initiation Kvi Ravelling – progression Kvp Pothole – initiation Kpi Pothole – progression Kpp Edge break Keb Roughness – environmental coefficient Kgm Roughness – SNPK Ksnpk Roughness – progression Kgp Texture depth – progression Ktd Skid resistance Ksfc Skid resistance – speed effects Ksfcs Source: Morosiuk et al. The rate of deterioration is comparatively higher due to the initial settlement. Austroads 2008 — 4— . the gradual deterioration phase. and the rapid deterioration phase.e.

1: Traffic load or time Deterioration phases of sealed granular pavements A specific calibration sequence is required for RD calibration because of the interactive nature of the HDM-4 RD models. Some sections appeared to have experienced improved conditions possibly due to maintenance treatments. Initial densification phase Rapid deterioration phase Gradual deterioration phase 0 0 Source: Martin and Hoque (2005)Figure 2. Storage. 2. The ‘all’ cracking model has two calibration factors.2 Cracking Models and K Factors HDM-4 includes RD models for both structural and thermal cracking. Similarly. As the time to initiation of wide cracking is dependent on the time to initiation of ‘all’ cracking. Section 7. This means that the cracking model is calibrated before the rutting model calibration because the predicted rutting is influenced by the predicted cracking. Consequently. Personal use licence only. one for adjusting the time to initiation of cracking (Kcia) and the other for adjusting the rate of crack progression (Kcpa).Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.4. Deformation or distress The observed data available for the last 10 years indicated that the pavement sections generally remained either in an unchanged condition or experienced a gradual rate of deterioration.3): Kcpa =1/Kcia Austroads 2008 — 5— 1 . In terms of structural cracking. RD models exist for ‘all’ cracking and ‘wide’ cracking (>3 mm). distribution or use on network prohibited. Thermal cracking is caused by binder stiffening and temperature variations. Therefore the sections considered for calibration were assumed to represent a wide spread of stages and conditions in their performance lives. the calibration was undertaken assuming the following relationship between the two factors (Bennett and Paterson 2000. Kcpw=1). The data were not sufficient to determine the all cracking initiation calibration factor (Kcia) independently of the progression calibration factor (Kcpa). Details of the cracking models are provided in Appendix A. only the ‘all’ cracking RD model was calibrated and the default calibration factors for ‘wide’ cracking were adopted (Kciw=1. A few sections also saw a very high rate of deterioration. the roughness models are calibrated after cracking and rutting calibration. The RD thermal cracking model was not calibrated nor is it relevant in Australia.2.

in m/km IRI = roughness at the start of the analysis year. The model for surface wear is not relevant in Australia. These four components are as follows: ƒ initial densification (rutting in the first year after new construction or reconstruction that includes a new base layer) ƒ structural deformation (structural rutting following initial densification) ƒ plastic deformation (shoving/deformation of asphalt layers) ƒ surface wear from studded tyres (rutting from studded tyres used on snow covered roads applicable only to cold climates).3 Rutting Models and K Factors The details of rutting models are given in Appendix A.4. Personal use licence only. Roughness is calculated at the end of each year. 2004b) the K factors for initial densification (Krid) were selected based on the experience on similar roads and on local engineering experience. taking into account the change in condition for each mode of distress sequentially for each year of an analysis period. the rut depth at any time being the sum of the four components. For South Australia a set of Krid factors was assumed. The same Krid values were used in this analysis of the Tasmanian and Victorian road networks. in m/km IRI = incremental change in roughness due to potholing. 2. in m/km IRI = incremental change in roughness due to cracking during analysis year. The total annual incremental change in roughness is the sum of the various components described above and shown in Eq. (2). potholing and the environment. 2004a. Toole et al. in m/km IRI Austroads 2008 — 6— . Kgp ΔRI ΔRIs ΔRIc ΔRIr ΔRIt ΔRIe RIa = calibration factor for roughness progression = total incremental change in roughness during analysis year. in m/km IRI = incremental change in roughness due to environment during analysis year. The details of roughness models are given in Appendix A. in m/km IRI = incremental change in roughness due to structural deterioration during analysis year. Storage. cracking.4. rutting. The model for plastic deformation predicts the plastic flow (shoving) of asphalt layers or long-term plastic deformation (creep) of thick asphalt pavements.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 2. This model is not relevant because the pavement sections considered for calibration are sealed granular and thin asphalt pavements. The rutting model is based on four components of rutting. The model for initial densification is used to predict the deformation of unbound granular materials and subgrade for new pavements in the first year of trafficking. In a previous study (Toole et al.4 Roughness Models and K Factors Roughness progression is predicted in HDM-4 as the sum of five components. The structural component of the rutting model was considered in this analysis and its coefficient (Krst) was calibrated. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. ΔRI = Kgp [ΔRIs + ΔRIc + ΔRIr + ΔRIt ] + ΔRIe 2 where. structural. in m/km IRI = incremental change in roughness due to rutting during analysis year. distribution or use on network prohibited.

0. Austroads 2008 — 7— . the gap between the predicted and measured roughness was reduced. there are two calibration factors which can be calibrated: ƒ environmental component (Kgm) ƒ roughness progression (Kgp). Personal use licence only. during the calibration it was found that the Kgp factors needed adjustment to match the predicted and measured roughness. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Therefore Kgp was always set equal to Kgm for calibration. Storage. When Kgp was set to equal Kgm. Bennett and Paterson (2000) advise that usually only the Kgm factor is used to adjust the HDM-4 roughness predictions to local conditions. However. As seen from the above.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads m Kgm = environmental coefficient = calibration factor for the environmental component. In some cases the difference between the predicted and measured roughness was large when the Kgp was set to the default value of 1. distribution or use on network prohibited.

rehabilitation or in some cases maintenance treatments) in terms of roughness. Details of this method can be found in Martin and Hoque (2006) and in Appendix B. 3. Storage. In this calibration. rutting and cracking were assumed based on the experience of similar road types under similar climate and traffic loading conditions in conjunction with the local knowledge of the responsible engineers. Using a trial and error method. Relative compaction was varied ƒ drainage life calibration factor was 1. pavement conditions were predicted by assuming the K factor(s) in question.0 ƒ zero percentage thermal cracking ƒ ravelling retardation factor equal to 1. As noted in Section 1. 2004a. a robust method of estimating pavement underlying rate of deterioration was developed under another Austroads project.annual drainage maintenance and potholes patched within two weeks of occurrence ƒ construction quality defect factor for bituminous surfacing (CDS) was 1.0 and base (CDB) equal to 0 (no defects).2 Calibration Approach The principle used for calibration was to calibrate HDM-4 RD models based on continuous deterioration data without including the immediate effect of maintenance treatments. Toole et al.0 ƒ crack retardation factor equal to 1. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. The effect of maintenance or rehabilitation was identified by a pre-defined change in pavement condition.0 ƒ drainage factor equal to 1. Where expected trends were used they were estimated from local experience of pavements under similar loading and environmental conditions. This pre-defined value is assumed and is adjustable subject to local experience and conditions. 2004b). Austroads 2008 — 8— . A number of assumptions and adjustments were made so that the predicted condition would follow an expected trend for a pavement section under a particular loading and environmental condition. matched as close as possible the observed conditions or expected trend.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 3 METHOD OF RD MODEL CALIBRATION 3. This is an automated process with flexibility that considers data scattering (or noise) as well as the effect of maintenance or rehabilitation.1 Previous Calibration As noted earlier. K factors were chosen so that the predicted conditions. Site specific initial pavement conditions (just after pavement construction. distribution or use on network prohibited. using HDM-4 software. The following values were assumed for all sections: ƒ routine maintenance . rutting and cracking were undertaken in a separate study for the Victorian and Tasmanian sealed and asphalt road network (Toole et al. Personal use licence only. calibrations of the coefficients for the HDM-4 RD models for roughness.0 ƒ climate conditions were chosen based on the site location and data from the Bureau of Meteorology.

distribution or use on network prohibited. 2004a. 5. rutting and cracking. traffic. pavement initial condition. Estimate the underlying rate of deterioration for roughness. a large number of pavement segments can be analysed with the same set of rules in a short time. 3. structural number.2. These data points are defined in Appendix B. based on the objective approach (Appendix B). pavement segments that showed negative deterioration were excluded from calibration. etc. 2. rehabilitation or reconstruction was not considered. This facilitates the calibration of a larger number of individual road network segments than previously possible. ƒ It was assumed that only those pavement segments which experienced deterioration for all distresses could have their relevant RD models calibrated. Storage. temperature. In this approach. In other words. 3. i. start of the analysis year. ƒ The initial condition and all other K factors in previous calibrations (Toole et al. the RD model coefficients were only calibrated for the period (or pavement life) where pavement segments were experiencing positive deterioration. identify the period (may be defined as ‘deterioration period’) for which the rate of deterioration was estimated as well as identify the pavement condition at the start of the deterioration period. 4. rutting and cracking (if reliable cracking data are available) on pavement segments. environmental data. The approach considers only those pavement segments that experience positive deterioration (increased distress with time) and discards those that experience negative deterioration (less distress with time). Continue this process until the predicted rate of deterioration matches closely with the underlying rate of deterioration.2. i. 6. Exclude the pavement segments that experience negative deterioration in any of the distresses considered in this analysis. were assumed to be suitable for the calibrations undertaken by this study. Austroads 2008 — 9— . Estimate the input parameters to run the HDM-4 models. using the observed time series pavement distress data. rainfall.2 Calibration Procedure Calibration of the RD models involved the following steps: 1. The following assumptions were made: ƒ The available performance data were assumed to represent pavement conditions some years after construction as the pavement performance history data did not contain performance data for the whole life of the pavement.e. Calculate the predicted rate of deterioration for the ‘deterioration period’ and compare it with the estimated underlying rate of deterioration. ƒ The performance data were assumed to be relevant from the last construction/reconstruction or rehabilitation. 3.1 Assumptions Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The method for estimating the underlying rate of deterioration is an objective approach that is not influenced by judgement and operational speed. Adjust the calibration coefficients for the RD models and repeat step five. roughness. 2004b). The approach only calibrates coefficients of RD models for pavement segments that have at least three or more ‘valid performance data’ points.e. The effect of any previous (if any) maintenance. environment classifications. For each segment considered for calibration. Toole et al. Key parameters include pavement type. that were not calibrated by this study. Run HDM-4 models to predict pavement condition with the input parameters. Personal use licence only. ƒ Due to the above.

1. the calibration sequence was cracking (when cracking calibration was considered). Because of the structure of the HDM-4 RD models. Storage. distribution or use on network prohibited. which excludes the separate influence of works effects (Section 3. Step two above was implemented because the RD models are for the deterioration phase only. as noted in Section 2. Personal use licence only. the coefficients may be restricted to a minimum or maximum value even if the predicted and observed underlying rates of deterioration did not match well.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 7.2) that give an apparent reduction in distress conditions which is assessed as negative deterioration.4. Use the calibration coefficients that produce the closest match. In some cases. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. rutting and roughness. Austroads 2008 — 10 — .

The traffic groups were defined as: low (AADT < 5000). The original data set comprised 82 sections covering a wide range of climate and loading conditions.2.2 Victorian Road Network 4. Pavement sections considered for the model development were grouped according to road type so that RD models were calibrated to suit road types M. In order to maintain consistency.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 4 CALIBRATION OF RD MODELS 4. However. Table 4. roughness and rutting deterioration were considered for RD model calibration. Road type ‘M’ represents freeways and motorways. roughness and rutting models are only considered for calibration because they are common distresses and their performance data were readily accessible. ‘Other’ roads are defined as roads that do not fall in the above four categories. Storage. rutting and cracking in the previous study (Toole et al. The pavement sections were further grouped according to pavement type. temperate (0 < TI < 50) and wet (TI > 50). cracking. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.1 Scope of Calibration Pavement deterioration manifests in a variety of distresses. B. As the aim of the re-calibration exercise was to calibrate RD models for sections experiencing deterioration over the last several years. Cracking data from the South Australian road network appeared to be reliable so the cracking RD model was calibrated using the South Australian data set. and ‘C’ roads are rural roads connecting smaller towns. Estimation of the underlying rate of deterioration showed that a number of sections had improved conditions (i. The historical deterioration data supplied by most SRAs contained sets of roughness and rutting data. 4. traffic level and climate conditions. Austroads 2008 — 11 — . those sections that had negative deterioration were excluded from the analysis. the same pavement classifications used in HDM-4 was also used in this exercise. but only a few SRAs had cracking data. ‘B’ roads are state highways connecting major cities.1 Road Sections Considered for RD Model Calibration The same pavement sections that were calibrated for the HDM-4 RD models for roughness. ‘A’ roads represent major arterials. Three groups of traffic levels and three groups of climate conditions were used. distribution or use on network prohibited.2. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000) and heavy (AADT > 15000).1 lists characteristics of pavement sections considered in the analysis. C and ‘Other’. The climate groups were defined in terms of Thornthwaite Index (TI): dry (TI < 0). exhibited negative deterioration of either roughness or rutting). 2004b) were re-calibrated using the approach outlined in Section 3.e. not all these sections were considered in the re-calibration. Consequently. Personal use licence only. the analysis considered only 55 sections out of the 82 sections originally considered. however. Therefore. A.

35 ~ 10. it was not known whether a 1.44) 0.10 Dry 6 22 6.04 ~ 0.93 ~ 3.7) 0.59 ~ 4.47 (0.22) Temperate 2 25 4.27) Temperate 2 13 6.33) 2.46 (0.4 ~ 4.09) Temperate 3 17 ~ 20 (18.52 0.50 0. For example.44) Dry 2 35 ~ 36 (35.1: Characteristics of Victorian pavement sections considered for analysis Road type1 Pavement type2 Traffic group3 Climate group4 No.12 ~ 5.55) Low A SRGB Medium Low B STGB Medium Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. However. 4.54) 0.26 0.05 AMSB Heavy Wet 1 26 7. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index. TI.79 ~ 1.42 ~ 0.03 ~ 0.0 (1. wet (TI > 50) 5. Austroads 2008 — 12 — .25 ~ 1.56 ~ 0.75) 3.6) 3.14 (6.05 ~ 0.12) 1. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A 3.95 (5. From the data supplied it was not possible to identify how the performance data was reported.0 3. This was confirmed by VicRoads.0) 0.42) 0.10 (0.95 (4.33) 5.51 0. while cracking data were usually collected manually and their reliability was less than desirable because of the subjective nature of this type of survey.59 (1. 2.8) 0.69 1.31 Temperate 5 20 ~ 37 (30) 5. Roughness and rutting progressions were the underlying rate of progression 7.7 ~ 5.82 0.05 ~ 0.64 ~ 1.75 1.35) 0. heavy (AADT > 15000) 4.15 AMGB Heavy Wet 1 26 6. consequently. The approach and equipment used to measure performance was not documented by the SRA supplying the data.78 (4.0 1.08 ~ 0.46 (2.72 ~ 7. cracking RD models were not calibrated for Victorian road sections.99 (0.2) 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.29 0. Road types are defined as per VicRoads classifications.2.56 (0. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5000).91 8.64 (0.15 (7.24 ~ 0.25) 0.16 (2.89) 0.2 Performance History The continuity of the time series data for roughness.82 (1.11 0. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000).95 0.09 ~ 6. a laser profiler was typically used in collecting reliable roughness and rutting data.96 ~ 4. Storage.47) 0.5) 6.12 ~ 6.5 (4.54 (5.26 (1. Personal use licence only.29 0.09 (0. < 0). of sections Pavement age5 (average years)7 SNP (average)7 Roughness progression (average)7 (NRM/year)6 Rutting progression (average)7 (mm/year)6 Dry 5 12 ~ 49 (33.45) 4.87 (0.16) Dry 1 21 3. rutting and cracking for the Victorian road sections varied from three to ten years.58 ~ 5.2 m or a 2.0 m straightedge simulation was used to calculate rut depths.73) STGB Low AMAP Heavy Wet 1 21 7.42) Wet 1 21 4.60 ~ 1.03 (1.57) Wet 2 24 2.65 (0.64 ~ 4.81) 0.15 ~ 3.68 6.12 (2. Values in the brackets represent the average values.31) 0.90 (0.6 ~ 8.03) Low M STGB Medium Heavy Other Temperate AMGB Heavy Notes: 1.35 (0.24 ~ 0. C 1 12 5.22 Temperate 12 10 ~ 25 (19.23 (4. Pavement age refers to the time since last construction or rehabilitation or reconstruction to year 200 6.87) .81) 0. distribution or use on network prohibited. temperate (0 < TI < 50).38 Temperate 10 15 ~ 41 (32.

72 0.30 0.2. temperate (0 < TI < 50).00 1.4 Calibration Results Calibration coefficients for rutting structural deterioration (Krst) and roughness progression (Kgm) were obtained using the approach explained in Section 3. 4.41 0. 4. Table 4. Personal use licence only.66 0.55 0.33 AMAP Heavy Wet 1.75 1. Previous calibration results obtained from Toole et al.28 0.50 4.28 Dry 0. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5000).83 0. Storage.2: Calibration results for pavement sections in Victoria Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.00 0. However.95 0.50 0.37 2.25 0.63 2. heavy (AADT > 15000).15 STGB Medium Temperate 2.50 0.40 2. TI. The rate of deterioration for roughness (NRM/year) and rutting (mm/year) for each group of pavement sections are shown in Table 4.35 1. Road type1 A Pavement type2 SRGB Traffic group3 Low Medium Low B STGB Medium C M Other Climate group4 Rutting coefficients (Krst) Roughness coefficients (Kgm) Previous result5 Revised result6 Previous result5 Revised result6 Dry 2. 4. The maintenance data were used to determine other parameters such as pavement and surface age.80 0.50 0.35 0. Included in Table 4.54 0.46 AMGB Heavy Wet 0.25 1.00 2. 2004b) for comparison.00 0.19 Temperate 2.82 0. The resulting calibration coefficients are shown in Table 4.96 Notes: 1.10 0.67 1.86 Low Dry 0.30 0.44 Dry 3.58 0. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000). Road types are defined as per VicRoads classifications.26 Temperate 1.2.17 0.2.58 0.49 1.48 0.53 1.1.25 0. < 0). Revised calibration results obtained using the calibration approach described in Section 3.35 3.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The above time series performance data were used to estimate the underlying rate of pavement deterioration for roughness and rutting.38 0.13 0. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A) 3. (2004 b) 6.36 Heavy Temperate 2.2.33 STGB Low Wet 3.34 Temperate 1.2 as mean values for each group of pavements.92 1. distribution or use on network prohibited. 2.53 Wet 3.39 AMGB Heavy Temperate 4. wet (TI > 50).2 are also the results from the previous calibration (Toole et al.00 AMSB Heavy Wet 0. Austroads 2008 — 13 — .30 0. 5.13 1.84 Temperate 3.42 0.17 1.00 1.75 2.3 Maintenance Intervention Data sets from the Victorian road network had a good record of maintenance history.25 0. maintenance history data were not used in the analysis because the estimation of the underlying rate of deterioration (Appendix A) excluded data that were considered to be influenced by the immediate effect of maintenance and rehabilitation treatments. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index.

0 0. 8 Revised calibration 7 Previous calibration R2 = 0.3881 5 Krst values Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. although some 38% of these comparisons have differences of at least 40% between their respective calibration coefficient values. Storage.0 1. the revised calibration produced a better relationship between the rate of deterioration and the K factors compared to the previous calibration. road network were available to ARRB from a previous RD model calibration project (Toole et al. However.2 1.67 for rutting and 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads As shown in Table 4. Energy and Resources (DIER).1: Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for the Victorian road network 4. The current approach usually yielded lower coefficient values compared to the previous method.2 0. These pavement sections covered both asphalt and spray seal surfaced pavements in the wet and temperate zones.1). roughness coefficients from both analyses appeared to be better matched. distribution or use on network prohibited. Traffic on these roads varied between 76 to 15000 AADT.3 Tasmanian Road Network 4.1 Road Sections Considered for RD Model Calibration The inventory and performance history of 80 pavement sections from the Department of Infrastructure.1. 2004a) for Tasmania. the plots of RD model coefficients and rate of deterioration progressions for individual pavement sections revealed a different outcome (Figure 4.4 1.6 0. roughness and rutting K calibration coefficients (Krst and Kgm) should be related to the rate of deterioration.6 1. better correlations (r2 of 0.39 for rutting and 0. 6 4 3 2 1 0 0. Also. Personal use licence only. Theoretically. the pavement group mean calibration coefficient values from the revised method and the previous method are on average comparable. Austroads 2008 — 14 — . Tasmania.75 for roughness) were observed in the revised results compared to the results (r2 of 0.8 1.8 Rutting progression (mm/year) Figure 4. When group specific results were compared.3.4 0. As shown in Figure 4.2.669 Trend line (revised calibration) Trendline (previous calibration) R2 = 0.39 for roughness) from the previous study.

e.3. i. However.2. while a couple of the sections were asphalt surfaced (AMGB).3 Maintenance Intervention Data sets from the Tasmanian road network had one to five records of maintenance treatments.3. This data included five to twelve measurements of roughness and four to nine measurements of rutting. 4. i.e. Storage. Of the 80 sections. for the same reasons as for the Victorian analysis. traffic group and climate zone. wet and temperate. rutting and cracking time series deterioration data were available for the Tasmanian road network. 58 showed positive deterioration and these 58 sections were considered for the re-calibration exercise. 4. pavement type. negative deterioration of either roughness or rutting conditions). maintenance data were not used in the analysis. Personal use licence only. and two climate groups. Also included were two to nine measurements of cracking data. 2004a) were considered for re-calibration using the calibration approach outlined in Section 3.3.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The same set of pavement sections that were calibrated for the HDM-4 RD models for roughness. distribution or use on network prohibited. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. As shown in Table 4.e. i. the sections were grouped into five road types. The same traffic and climate criteria as used for the Victorian data set were also used for the Tasmanian data set. which showed that there was little cracking over the last ten years. most of the test sections were surfaced with spray seal (STGB). only roughness and rutting data were used for the re-calibration. Austroads 2008 — 15 — . Estimation of the underlying rate of deterioration showed that a number of sections experienced improved conditions (i. as for the Victorian data set. Therefore. rutting and cracking in the previous study (Toole et al.2 Performance History Roughness. the selected pavement sections fell into two traffic groups. The selected pavement sections were grouped according to road type. type one to five. while HDM-4 classifications were used for pavement types. As per DIER practice. Also. low and medium.e.

distribution or use on network prohibited.13) Low 1 STGB Medium AMGB 2 Low Low STGB Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.75 ~ 4.5) 3.27) 0.53 (0.14 ~ 0. TI.42) 0.73 (0.01 ~ 0.13 ~ 1.07 (0. Included in Table 4.2.05) Temperate 1 23 3.33) Temperate 1 10 2.29) Wet 5 11 ~ 37 (21.4 Calibration Results Calibration coefficients for rutting structural deterioration (Krst) and roughness progression (Kgm) were obtained using the approach explained in Section 3.47) 0.64 (0.72 (2.51) 0.48) 0.48 (0.25) Wet 1 29 3.31) Notes: 1.91) Temperate 2 32 ~ 43 (37. Medium 3 STGB Low Medium 4 5 STGB Low AMGB Low STGB Low Wet 1 21 3.33) 2. Roughness and rutting progressions were the underlying rate of progressions.21) 0.86 (1. Austroads 2008 — 16 — .02 ~ 1.50 (2.33) 2.63) 0. 7.25 ~ 0.3.48 ~ 5.52) 0.00 ~ 0.39 ~ 2.12) Wet 3 12 ~ 16 (14) 2.20 ~ 3.13 ~ 0. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000).37 (0.78) 0.74) 0.55 0.63 0. 2.52 (0.33) 3.05 ~ 0.18 Temperate 3 21 ~ 24 (29.42) 0.25) 0. 4.47 (0. 5.33) 1.45) 0.07) 1.18) Wet 8 13 ~ 39 (21.51 (1.23) Wet 7 10 ~ 36 (19) 2.46 (0.40 (3.62 0.77 (0.46) 0.5) 3.6) 2.86 (0.21 0.80 ~ 1.07 ~ 0. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index.22 (0.94) 0. 3.46 (0.34 ~ 1.48 ~ 2.75 (0.48 1.26 ~ 1.46 ~ 3. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A).52) 0. of sections Pavement age5 (average years)7 SNP (average)7 Roughness progression (average)7 (NRM/year)6 Rutting progression (average)7 (mm/year)6 Temperate 2 15 ~ 25 (20) 3. wet (TI > 50).22) 0. Pavement age refers to the time since last construction or rehabilitation or reconstruction to year 2005.97 ~ 4.25) 2.74 (3.06 ~ 1.18 ~ 3.13 ~ 1.23 ~ 3.37 (2.3: Characteristics of the Tasmanian pavement sections considered for analysis Road type1 Pavement type2 Traffic group3 AMGB Medium Climate group4 No.19 ~ 1.05 ~ 0.26) 0.77 (4.38) 2.26 0.60 (3. < 0).54 (3.77 (0.49) Temperate 3 20 ~ 26 (22.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.03 ~ 0.28) Wet 8 10 ~ 42 (19.30) Temperate 4 13 ~ 26 (17.26) 0.04 ~ 0. Personal use licence only.08 ~ 0.15 (0. Values in the brackets represent the average values. heavy (AADT > 15000). The calibration coefficients are shown in Table 4.08 Temperate 3 19 ~ 28 (23.10 (4.93) 0.03 ~ 0.15 ~ 0.36 (0.91) 0. temperate (0 < TI < 50).55 (2.46 ~ 3. Storage.02 ~ 1.5) 2.68 (2.39 (3.00 ~ 0.29) 0.10 ~ 2.76 ~ 4.13 ~ 2.45 (3.42 (0.51) 0.01 ~ 0.22 (0.68) 0.4 as mean values for each group of pavements.20 ~ 0. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5000). Road types are defined as per DIER classifications.95 0.48 (2.46 3.46 (0.75 (0.18 Temperate 2 27 ~ 38 (32. 2004a) for comparison.4 are also the results from the previous calibration (Toole et al. 6.07 (0.06 Temperate 4 19 ~ 23 (21) 2. 4.89 (0.11 ~ 10.

17 Wet 1.67 0.82) with the estimated deterioration.21 Temperate 1.30 0.45 0.20 0.22 Wet 0. It should be noted that. Revised calibration results obtained using the calibration approach described in Section 3.13 0.18 0.84 3. Austroads 2008 — 17 — .13 Temperate 1.80 1. (2004 b). wet (TI > 50).88 1. TI. 3.26 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The group mean calibration coefficients from the revised method are generally lower compared with those of the previous method. 5.50 0. The revised method produced K values that were highly correlated (r2 > 0.00 0.30 0.00 0. 4. Table 4.03 0.24 1. heavy (AADT > 15000). the calibration results from the revised method were calculated so that the rate of predicted deterioration more closely matched the observed rate of deterioration.20 1.13 0.63 0.00 0.32 0.21 0.50 0. temperate (0 < TI < 50).39 0.17 Wet 0.90 0.40 0.93 0.17 0.2.71 Wet 0. unlike the previous method.14 Temperate 1. and vice versa. 2.22 0.43 0.20 0. Figure 4.50 0. As expected.43 0.26 Temperate 1.60 0. 6.38 0. Road types are defined as per DIER classifications.86 0.23 Temperate 0. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A).82 Temperate 0.17 0.00 0.18 Temperate 1.25 0. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5000).00 1.18 0.2 shows the relationship between roughness and rutting progressions and Krst and Kgm calibration coefficients.60 0.27 Temperate 1. Personal use licence only.17 Wet 0.75 Temperate Wet Low STGB Medium AMGB 2 STGB Low Low Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Storage. Previous calibration results obtained from Toole et al.40 0.40 0.85 0.91 0. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index. distribution or use on network prohibited.48 0. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000).17 Notes: 1.30 0. Medium 3 STGB Low Medium 4 5 STGB Low AMGB Low STGB Low Rutting coefficients (Krst) Previous result5 Revised result6 Roughness coefficients (Kgm) Previous result5 Revised result6 1.90 1.83 0. < 0).34 0. the results from the revised method indicate that pavement sections with a higher rate of deterioration have higher roughness and rutting calibration coefficients (Krst and Kgm).4: Calibration results for the pavement sections in Tasmania Road type1 1 Pavement type2 Traffic group3 Climate group4 AMGB Medium Temperate 0.55 0.15 Wet 0.

6 1.0 Roughness progression (NRM/year) Figure 4.2: Relationship between rates of deterioration and RD model coefficients for the Tasmanian road network Austroads 2008 — 18 — .4 Trend line (revised calibration) 1.4 1.0 4.2 1.0 1.8 1.2 0.0 6.2 0 0.6 0.0 10. Rutting progression (mm/year) Trendline (previous calibration) 1 0.0 2.0 8. Personal use licence only.4 0. Storage.0 0.8498 Previous calibration 1. distribution or use on network prohibited.0007 0 0.1263 0.6 Revised calibration 2 R = 0.0 12.4 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 7 Revised calibration Previous calibration 6 Trend line (revised calibration) 5 Krst values R2 = 0.6 0.8 2 R = 0.2 Kgm values Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.8284 Trendline (previous calibration) 4 3 2 1 R2 = 0.

urban arterial (UA). Calibration of the HDM-4 RD models was iterative and time consuming. dry and temperate. while some sections also carry medium to heavy traffic. Austroads 2008 — 19 — . It was therefore too time consuming to analyse all the 14765 sections in this study. The sections were grouped into four road types. 2006).e. Personal use licence only. it took 20 to 30 minutes to calibrate one pavement section (on a Pentium 4 desk top computer) for the cracking. urban local (UL) and rural arterial (RA). it will be possible to analyse a large number of pavement sections. These mean values were used for the calibration of the RD models.e. resulting in 14765 sections with positive deterioration concurrently for cracking. Estimation of the underlying rate of deterioration on each section showed that a large number of sections showed improved conditions (i. while the majority were in the dry condition. South Australia.5. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. with improved computing capacity and an efficient programming algorithm. i. Mean values for HDM-4 RD model coefficients were estimated or assumed for each group of pavements. The available data contained more than 129000 pavement sections. HDM-4 classifications were used for pavement types and the same traffic and climate criteria as used for Victorian and Tasmanian data sets. national highways (NH). This resulted in 51 groups of pavements with the characteristics of these pavement sections shown in Table 4. distribution or use on network prohibited. pavement type. the majority of the sections carry low traffic (< 5000 AADT). Typically. Storage. were available to ARRB from another project (Martin et al. On average. rutting and roughness progression being considered for calibration. the pavement sections fall into two climate conditions. All sections were initially considered for the calibration of HDM-4 RD models for South Australian conditions. The 14765 pavement sections were grouped on the basis of road type. candidate pavement sections were calibrated using individual pavement section parameters with the results placed into groups based on a set of criteria.e.4. each 100 m in length.5. However.4 South Australian Road Network 4. In terms of traffic loading. As seen in Table 4.1 Road Sections for RD Model Calibration The inventory and time series deterioration data of a large number of pavement sections from the Department for Transport. i. All sections with negative deterioration were excluded from the analysis. It should be noted that the results of this analysis are applicable to the pavements whose characteristics are similar to the mean values used in this analysis. negative deterioration of either roughness or rutting or cracking). Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI). rutting and roughness models. The pavement sections covered both asphalt and spray seal surfaced pavements in the dry and temperate zones.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 4. traffic loading and climate conditions prior to calibration. The results were reported as a mean of each group of pavements.

38 (1.77) 0.53 ~ 1.01 ~ 16.63 (0.45 (1.95 (3.67) 0.12 (3.01 ~ 3.69) (4.55 ~ 2.59) 0.46 ~ 1. Storage.8) 3.60 (0.89) 0 ~ 6.70 ~ 3.57) 0.77 (3.69 ~ 3.65) (4.61 ~ 3.91) 0.49) (2.19 ~ 8.77 ~ 3.91 (0.10) 0.69 ~ 3.90 (3.86 (0.83) 0.15 (0.05 ~ 1.83) 1.69) Dry 766 1 ~ 49 (20) 2.45 (2.87 (0.78) (5.40 (1.01 (1.24 ~ 6.13 ~ 1. distribution or use on network prohibited.75 ~ 3.37) 0.84) 1.21 (2.52) (2.90 (3.12) 0.77 ~ 0.69) 0 ~ 10.5) 2.91 (3.77) 0.09 ~ 0.18 (1.55 (2.45) 0.98) Dry 33 3 ~ 11 (7.74 (3.96) 0.56) 0 ~ 8.06 ~ 1.25 ~ 10.55 (0.77 (3.59) 0.49 ~ 3.39 (0.51) Austroads 2008 — 20 — 0.51 ~ 5.2) 2.26 (5.68) 0 ~ 3.79) Dry 73 (10) (3.01 ~ 2.80 (1.19 ~ 13.42) 0 ~ 12.02 (0.76 (3.33 ~ 12.08) 0.06 ~ 1.23 ~ 3.67) (2.11 (0.43 (0.77) Dry 52 9 ~ 12 (10.35) 2.64) 0.14) Dry 396 1 ~ 47 (26) 2. (avg)# (NRM/yr)6 Dry 2 10 ~ 12 (11) 3.58 (4.73) Temperate 7 4 ~ 6 (4.53 (0.30) Dry 4 (1) (3.18 (0.73) 0.94 ~ 3.68 (0.5) 2.98) 0 ~ 18.68) 0.19 (0.35 1.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.60) 1.32 0.02 ~ 2.54) 0 ~ 19.34 0.12 ~ 9.22) 0 ~ 6.71 (3.79 (3.91 (0.98 ~ 3. (avg)# (% area /yr)6 Rutting prog.08) .77) 0.52) 0.03 ~ 2.07 ~ 1.52) 0.65 0.22) 0.95 (3.42) Dry 14 3 ~ 47 (32) 3.57) (3.24 (1.5: Characteristics of the South Australian pavement sections considered for analysis Road type1 Pavement type2 Traffic group3 AMAP Heavy Low Medium AMGB Heavy Low Medium Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.16 ~ 4.85 (0.33) Dry 19 4 ~ 6 (5.48 0. of sections Pavement age5 (average years)# SNP (avg)# Cracking prog.77 (3.84) Temperate 6 (5) 3.75 0.60) Temperate 107 1 ~ 33 (31) 3.68 (2. Personal use licence only.65) 0 ~ 23.5) 3.84 (3.0) 0.53) 0 ~ 4.24) 0.5) 3.06 (0.62) 0 ~ 9.33 ~ 8. AMSB NH Heavy STAB Low Low STGB Medium Heavy Low STSB Medium Heavy Climate group4 No.80 ~ 3.61 ~ 3.36) 0 ~ 3.08 ~ 3.23 (1.40 ~ 10.23 ~ 7.84 (3.01 ~ 3.59) Dry 3 (3) (3.41) (1.96 ~ 10.95) 0.52 ~ 8.0 ~ 10.51 (0.16) 0.61 (2.79 (0.82 (3.76 ~ 3.05 ~ 5.04 ~ 10.0 (3.37) Dry 1254 1 ~ 47 (25. (avg)# (mm/yr)6 Roughness prog.12) Dry 408 2 ~ 66 (33) 3.01 ~ 1.02 ~ 2.14) 0.07 ~ 18.66 ~ 3.35 0.24 ~ 1.55 0.55 (0.57 (2.75 (0.44 (0.03) Dry 5014 1 ~ 47 (28) 2.99 ~ 3.66 (1.10 ~ 2.59) Dry 140 3 ~ 10 (8.

7) 0 ~ 3.50) Dry 23 7 ~ 12 (8.93 (3.46 (3.71 4.53 (3.67 (3.55 (0.16) 0. (avg)# (NRM/yr)6 1.66 (3.86 ~ 3.62 ~ 3.93 (4.48) 0 ~ 3.24 (3.73) 0.51) 0 ~ 13.67) 2.51 (1.82 (3.14) 0 ~ 5.41) 0.48 ~ 3.59 (1.78) Temperate 3 5 ~ 31 (13.72 (0.03 ~ 2.95 (1.30) 0.09 (2.51) Dry 1966 1 ~ 80 (28) 2.89 (3.74 (3.12 ~ 3.62) Dry 1266 1 ~ 80 (29.77) 0.03 (3.70) (5.99) 0 ~ 4.60 (3.12 ~ 3.58) 0 ~ 11.47 ~ 3. Personal use licence only.01 ~ 4.4) Temperate 54 1 ~ 70 (37) 2.27) Dry 11 4 ~ 10 (8.90 ~ 3.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 Traffic group3 Medium AMAB Heavy AMAP Heavy Low Medium AMGB Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.61) 0.06 ~ 13.90 (1.07 Dry 1 33 3.14) Austroads 2008 — 21 — 0.93) 0.19 ~ 3.07 (3.92 (3.31) 0 ~ 5.44 (2.19 ~ 3.74 (3.09) 0 ~ 8.80) 0 ~ 3.26 ~ 4.86 (1.13 ~ 4.96 (0.87 (3.10 (1.57) 0.95 (2.87) Dry 212 5 ~ 73 (33.59) 0.57 (3.78 (3.45 1.4) 0 ~ 1.50 3.76 ~ 3.91) Temperate 6 4 ~ 11 (5.51) (2. distribution or use on network prohibited.03 (0.72) 1.07 ~ 16.55 11.56 (2.77 (1.21) 0.07 ~ 14.55 ~ 3.82) Dry 60 5 ~ 11 (7.32) 0 ~ 13.88) Dry 108 1 ~ 70 (22. Heavy Medium UA AMSB Heavy Low Medium STGB Heavy Medium STSB Heavy Climate group4 No.70) 0 ~ 10.28 (2.26 (2.51 0 ~ 3 (0.90 0.97) Temperate 114 2 ~ 38 (31) 2.58) 1.42 (3.39) 0 ~ 20.80) 1.40) 0 ~ 9.3) 3.77 (3.33) 0.38) 0 ~ 19.15) 0.20 (1.64) 0 ~ 8.99 ~ 17.83 (3.32 ~ 3.49 1.11 (2.38 ~ 3.2) 3.58 ~ 3.74) (3.78 (3.56) 3. Storage.6) Temperate 56 Dry Roughness prog.67) (6.09) 0 ~ 19.15) 0.30 (3.08) Temperate 349 2 ~ 77 (28.37) 3.15 (1.50 ~ 7.2) 3.54) 2.03 ~ 3.02 ~ 15.12) 0.06) 0.05 ~ 2.69) 0.79 (3.66 (3.82) Rutting prog.47 ~ 3.39 (1.61) 0 ~ 6.50 (1.85 (3.59) 0 ~ 3.80 (1. (avg)# (mm/yr)6 0 ~ 3.55 (1.17 ~ 14.03 (2.87 (3.72 ~ 3.47) 0 ~ 9.40 ~ 3.13 ~ 3.83 (3.66 Dry 5 8 ~ 10 (9.39 (1.3) 2.28 (2.74 ~ 3. of sections Pavement age5 (average years)# SNP (avg)# Cracking prog.90) 4 ~ 11 (8.51 ~ 3.14 1.60 (1.31) 0 ~ 10.95 (1.92 ~ 3.01 ~ 13.42 ~ 16.35 (1.75 (1.34) 56 4 ~ 55 (33.62) 0.72 ~ 3.10) 0 ~ 4.34) Dry 11 (10) 3.74 (2.84 (1.74) 0 ~ 1.76 (1.75 (2.71) Dry 233 1 ~ 67 (22) 3.3) 2.18 ~ 1.49) 0 ~ 3.39) 0.38 ~ 3.6) 2.96) 0.61) Temperate 496 1 ~ 70 (29) 2.3 (0.35 0.7) 3.06 ~ 3.23) 0 ~ 4.72) 0 ~ 3.89 (1.98 (0.85 0.30) 0 ~ 3.20 (1.83 (4.74 (1.07 ~ 18.57 ~ 3.88) 0.27 ~ 8.71) Temperate 49 37 ~ 72 (39) 2.98 (3.19) Temperate 1 11 3.38 ~ 3.53 ~ 2.53 (2.27) 0 ~ 21. (avg)# (% area /yr)6 Dry 5 25 ~ 59 (32) 3.60 (1.3) 2.30 ~ 12.31 (4.26 ~ 2.52 ~ 5.78) 0.95 (0.11 ~ 9.63) .80 (1.13 ~ 6.9) 3.

12 (1.75) 0. cracking models were also calibrated for the DTEI road network. rutting and cracking time series deterioration data were available for the DTEI road network.97 (5.01 ~ 1. rutting structural deterioration coefficients (Krst) and roughness progression coefficients (Kgm) were estimated using the approach explained in Section 3.09) 0 ~ 1. (avg)# (% area /yr)6 Rutting prog.52 (3. 2.79 1.88) 1 ~ 7.27) 0 ~ 1.50 (3. 7.47) 0 ~ 2. (avg)# (mm/yr)6 1.18) 0.13 ~ 2.38) Roughness prog. 5.6.000).87 Dry 6 55 ~ 72 (69) 2.36) 0. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A).04 (2.85 1.35 ~ 9.52 (0.36 (0.85 (0.58) 0.07 (2.67 (0.22 ~ 4. The results are recorded in Table 4.08 ~ 1.27) 0. medium (5.4) 2.2) 2.56 0.01 ~ 1.000).41 (0. 6.04 0 ~ 9.98 0. Values in the brackets represent the average values.45) Temperate 7 (5) (3.38 ~ 4.74 ~ 2.4) 2. Personal use licence only. as explained before.3 Maintenance Intervention Maintenance treatment data were not available.75 (2.15 (0.4.23 (2. Therefore.11) 0.05 ~ 6.42) 0.46 (2.42) 0 ~ 8.2) Notes: 1.25 (0.34 (2.86 Dry 890 4 ~ 75 (39.8) 3.16 ~ 3. Road types are defined as per DTEI classifications. (avg)# (NRM/yr)6 0. 4.23 (2.87 (1.48) 2.88) 0 ~ 11.000 < AADT < 15.4.36 (2.14 3. 4.2.47) 0. DTEI advised that the quality of the cracking data was reasonable.4 Calibration Results Calibration results for cracking progression (Kcpa).67 (0.95) 0 ~ 10. heavy (AADT > 15.27 (3. < 0).37 ~ 3.2 Performance History Roughness.25 (2. maintenance historical data were not necessary for this analysis.57) 0.000).42 ~ 7. in addition to roughness and rutting model calibrations.67 ~ 3.2) 2. 4. However.16 ~ 3.86) 0.33) 1.37) 0.79) Temperate 1 46 3.27) 1.05 (0.27 (0.15 ~ 5.35 (0. This data included cracking data from 1999 to 2004 and roughness and rutting data from 1994 to 2004.75) Dry 60 12 ~ 47 (40) 2.19) Temperate 107 24 ~ 50 (41) 2.60 (1.10 (2.49) 0. of sections Low Dry 1 72 2.57 (2.06) Dry 189 6 ~ 75 (38.83 (2.4.41) 0.40) 1. Storage.01 ~ 1.96 (2. Roughness and rutting progressions were the underlying rate of progressions.01 ~ 2.17 (2.14 ~ 3.77 ~ 2.05 (1. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index.65) Dry 11 (35) (2.21) Medium Low Low Pavement age5 (average years)# AMGB Medium Low RA STGB Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.43) 0 ~ 10.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 AMGB UL STGB Traffic group3 Climate group4 No.52) Temperate 61 2 ~ 46 (30.03 ~ 8.40 (2.17 ~ 9.16 ~ 0. TI. 4. distribution or use on network prohibited.96 (2.16) 0.37 ~ 9.42) Temperate 15 22 ~ 24 (22. The method of estimating the underlying rate of deterioration (Appendix A) adopted in this analysis excluded condition data that were affected by maintenance intervention.49 ~ 3. Pavement age refers to the time since last construction or rehabilitation or reconstruction to year 2005. temperate (0 < TI < 50). Medium STSB Moderate SNP (avg)# Cracking prog.03) 0.47) 0 ~ 2.86 ~ 2.41 (3. 3. wet (TI > 50).53 ~ 1.06) Dry 33 5 ~ 47 (26. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5.05 ~ 1.37 ~ 3.35 (0. Austroads 2008 — 22 — .69 (2.

0).45).5. the analysis yielded smaller K factors (Kcpa and Kgm) for the cracking and roughness models (less than the default 1. Personal use licence only. The results from these individual pavement sections can then be grouped to find mean K values. similar to those for the Victorian and Tasmanian road networks.89) was very high. Austroads 2008 — 23 — . it was expected that the relationship between the K factors and the rates of deterioration would be low. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. they were based on the calculated mean values for the 51 groups of pavements.6 are applicable only to the pavement sections whose characteristics are similar to the mean values shown in Table 4.3. the regression coefficient for rutting (r2 = 0. as shown in Figure 4. very low for cracking (r2 = 0.0) and reasonable for roughness (r2 = 0. As noted previously.6.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads As seen in Table 4. a large number of individual pavement sections could be calibrated. Because the mean values were used for the calibration. were generally higher (greater than 1.0 values). distribution or use on network prohibited. Therefore. Again with greater computing capacity and a sophisticated algorithm. on the other hand. Storage. these K factors were not estimated using the individual pavement section parameters. the K values shown in Table 4. However. The rutting K factors (Krst).

34 Dry 0.14 Temperate 0.17 Temperate 0.14 Dry 0.94 Low Dry 0.44 Dry 0.38 Dry 1.44 Dry 0. distribution or use on network prohibited.18 Temperate 0.44 1.15 Dry 0.32 Dry 0.20 Temperate 0.28 Temperate 0.22 Dry 0. Personal use licence only.54 Dry 0.14 Dry 0.69 Dry 0.20 Temperate 0.16 Dry 0.14 Medium Dry 0.69 Temperate 0.6: Calibration results for the pavement groups in South Australia Road type1 Pavement type2 Traffic group3 Climate group4 RD model coefficients5 Cracking (Kcpa) Rutting (Krst) Roughness (Kgm) AMAP Heavy Dry 0. Storage.24 Temperate 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.27 Dry 0.68 Temperate 0.15 Dry 0.68 Dry 0.18 Temperate 0.24 Austroads 2008 — 24 — .24 Dry 3.22 Dry 0.15 Dry 0.68 Temperate 0.22 Dry 0.26 Temperate 0.32 Dry 0.38 0.24 Dry 0.24 Dry 0.16 AMGB Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.14 Dry 0.30 Dry 0. Heavy Dry 0.14 Dry 0.

Revised calibration results obtained using the calibration approach described in Section 3. 5. TI. Previous calibration results obtained from Toole et al.14 Dry 0.2. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5000). distribution or use on network prohibited. 2. 6.0 1. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A). wet (TI > 50).888 8 K rst values Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. 3. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index. heavy (AADT > 15000). 1.14 Temperate 0.0 2.69 Temperate 0. < 0). Storage.14 Temperate 0. 6 4 2 0 0. 4.0 Rutting progression (mm/year) Austroads 2008 — 25 — 3.14 Temperate 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Pavement type2 Road type1 Traffic group3 Climate group4 RD model coefficients5 Cracking (Kcpa) Dry 0.44 Rutting (Krst) Roughness (Kgm) Notes: 12 Revised calibration Trend line (revised calibration) 10 R 2 = 0. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000).28 Dry 0.31 Dry 0.68 Temperate 0. Road types are defined as per DTEI classifications.14 Dry 0. (2004 b). temperate (0 < TI < 50).0 .

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads

4.0

Revised calibration
Trend line (revised calibration)

K cpa values

3.0

2.0

1.0

R 2 = 0.0005

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1.8
Revis ed calibration
Outlier
Trend line (revis ed calibration)

1.6

R 2 = 0.452

1.4
1.2

K gm values

Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.

Cracking progression (% area/year)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Roughness progression (NRM/year)

Figure 4.3:

Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for South Australian road network

Austroads 2008
— 26 —

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads

4.5

Queensland Road Network

4.5.1

Road Sections for RD Model Calibration

The inventory and time series roughness condition data collected from a large network in
Queensland were made available for the study by the Queensland Department of Main Roads
(QDMR). The data set held more than 28,600 road sections of 1 km in length with roughness,
pavement characteristics, traffic, climate and inventory data up to 2005.

Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.

As a previous analysis of the Queensland road network was limited to rural roads with AADT less
than 5000 vehicles per day (Martin and Hoque 2006), the original number of records was reduced
to just over 7300 for this calibration. After the final selection process based on the estimated
underlying rate of deterioration, the number of sections with positive deterioration available for the
RD model calibration was 5327. As for the South Australian data, it was not possible to calibrate
each section individually because of processing time; calibration of a group of sections was
undertaken with an expected potential reduction in the accuracy of the results.
Four categories of road type were identified in the Queensland road network. These were National
Highway (NH), State Strategic (SS), Regional Roads (RR) and District Roads (DR). Pavement
types were those classified by HDM-4, namely AMGB, STGB, STSB (as defined in Table A 2 of
Appendix A), and sub-grade soil was designated as either reactive or non-reactive. The last
parameter used for the grouping was climatic conditions. This was based on the ranges of
Thornthwaite moisture indices which determined whether the site climate was dry, temperate or
hot. Soil reactivity was used instead of traffic for grouping the road sections as there was only one
group of traffic considered for the network analysis.
For each group of sections the mean value, range (minimum and maximum) and sample size for
the required parameters were calculated and presented in a table as summary information. Only
mean values were used as input parameters in the calibration of the HDM-4 RD models. With
these grouping criteria, 57 groups were formed and each was treated as a single pavement section
in the calibration analysis. The group sample size varied significantly, from a minimum of one to a
maximum of 606 individual pavement sections, with an overall average size of 92 sections.
4.5.2

Performance History

Only roughness was available for the analysis of the Queensland road network. A roughness
history of up to 18 years (from 1987 to 2005) provided a large sample size for the calibration of the
roughness RD model.
4.5.3

Maintenance Intervention

The data set also contained the annual maintenance sealing cost and the treatment age for each
section. However, maintenance history was not needed for this analysis as the method of
estimating the underlying rates of deterioration (Appendix B) excluded deterioration data that were
assumed to be affected by maintenance interventions.

Austroads 2008
— 27 —

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads

Table 4.7: Characteristics of the Queensland pavement sections considered for analysis
Road type1

Pavement
type2

Soil reactivity3

Non-reactive

AMGB

Reactive

Non-reactive

Climate
group4

No. of
sections

SNC
(average)#

Pavement
age
(average
years)#

AADT (avg)#

Dry

6

3.14 ~
3.54 (3.45)

9 ~ 31
(13.2)

545 ~ 3497
(2916.5)

Temperate

17

3.24 ~
3.74 (3.63)

13 ~ 30
(17.6)

2523 ~ 4612
(3176.6)

Wet

9

3.24 ~
3.48 (3.33)

4 ~ 22
(12.7)

2523 ~ 4241
(2947.7)

Dry

1

3.14

31

545

Temperate

7

2.87 ~
3.35 (2.94)

11 ~ 30
(17.7)

310 ~ 4612
(924.6)

Wet

4

2.96 ~
3.24 (3.17)

7 ~ 18
(14.8)

537 ~ 2523
(2026.5)

Dry

188

3.29

5 ~ 38
(14.5)

310 ~ 4657
(1454.3)

Temperate

254

2.87 ~
3.74 (3.3)

4 ~ 37
(14.8)

310 ~ 4817
(2175.5)

Wet

97

3.24 ~
3.48 (3.34)

3 ~ 24
(14.6)

2045 ~ 4828
(2820.1)

Dry

225

2.78 ~
3.72 (3.12)

3 ~ 42
(14.3)

242 ~ 4255
(746.3)

Temperate

86

2.8 ~ 3.7
(3)

6 ~ 29
(12.8)

242 ~ 4257
(806.1)

Wet

128

2.8 ~ 3.7
(2.95)

6 ~ 38
(14.3)

242 ~ 4036
(612.3)

Temperate

7

2.87 ~
3.48 (3.17)

4 ~ 17
(8.9)

310 ~ 4173
(2248.7)

Wet

3

3.31 ~
3.32 (3.32)

3 ~ 10 (6)

2572 ~ 4334
(3746.7)

Dry

1

3.01

9

772

Temperate

12

2.87 ~
3.51 (3.16)

5 ~ 20
(13.4)

310 ~ 4612
(2168.6)

Wet

5

3.1 ~ 3.1
(3.1)

14 ~ 28
(23.2)

1523 ~ 1523
(1523)

Dry

606

2.64 ~
3.65 (2.98)

4 ~ 36
(15.7)

167 ~ 4451
(538.1)

Temperate

107

2.81 ~
3.67 (3.21)

4 ~ 38
(16.4)

214 ~ 3348
(1502.1)

Wet

42

2.9 ~ 3.46
(3.19)

4 ~ 40
(15.8)

532 ~ 1652
(1320.3)

Dry

425

2.64 ~ 3.6
(2.98)

4 ~ 58
(13.6)

167 ~ 2321
(497.2)

Temperate

27

3.05

4 ~ 38
(13.3)

167 ~ 1652
(731.1)

Wet

29

2.85 ~
3.46 (3.03)

4 ~ 33
(17.5)

301 ~ 1652
(654.1)

Dry

21

2.75 ~
3.47 (3.26)

3 ~ 9 (6)

217 ~ 1235
(954.6)

Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.

NH
STGB

Reactive

Non-reactive
STSB
Reactive

AMGB

Non-reactive

Non-reactive
SS
STGB

Reactive

SS

STSB

Non-reactive

Austroads 2008
— 28 —

Personal use licence only.32 (2.7) 113 ~ 689 (477.47 (2.8) 14 ~ 3916 (734.03 (2. of sections SNC (average)# Pavement age (average years)# AADT (avg)# Temperate 1 3.95) 4 ~ 46 (13.29) 4 ~ 15 (8.6) 183 ~ 2260 (1661.68 7 ~ 23 (10.7) 730 ~ 3072 (1070.4) Dry 18 2.3) 340 ~ 1213 (787.88 ~ 3.81 3 226 Reactive AMGB Non-reactive Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. RR STGB Reactive Non-reactive RR STSB Reactive Austroads 2008 — 29 — .7) Temperate 6 2.37 7 3326 Wet 6 2.1) Temperate 126 2.76) 4 ~ 61 (17.89) 4 ~ 31 (13.8) Temperate 29 2.04) 5 ~ 17 (9) 751 ~ 1523 (1086.88 ~ 3.75) 4 ~ 38 (13.41 ~ 3.2) 14 ~ 4118 (309.1) Wet 7 2.6) 14 ~ 3313 (543. Storage.8) Dry 10 2.38 (2.7 (3.8) Reactive Dry 5 2.66 ~ 3.37 ~ 3.37 (3.47 (3.6) 160 ~ 730 (596.63 (2.6) Wet 419 2.93 ~ 3.51 (3.37) 8 ~ 45 (32) 348 ~ 3303 (2068.8) Wet 1 3.7) Wet 132 2.74) 3 ~ 40 (11. distribution or use on network prohibited.7) Temperate 17 2.97 ~ 3.36 (3.96 ~ 3.71 ~ 3.71 (2.41 ~ 3.37 (3.32) 4 ~ 12 (9.2) Dry 260 2.45 ~ 3.63 (2.9) 4 ~ 25 (21.2) 4 ~ 15 (7.3) Temperate 181 2.6) Wet 1 2.04 7 672 Non-reactive Dry 6 2.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 Soil reactivity3 Climate group4 No.2) 399 ~ 518 (418.07) 4 ~ 25 (9.9) 24 ~ 1409 (265.36 (3.23) 9 ~ 11 (10.36 ~ 3.8) 37 ~ 1077 (194.6) 37 ~ 4237 (541) Dry 302 2.81 ~ 3.94) 4 ~ 36 (9.4) 76 ~ 3742 (809.29 ~ 3.

4.5 ~ 2.87 30 66 Wet 6 2.63 (2.99) 4 ~ 18 (9.81) 3 ~ 58 (16.81 ~ 3.02 (2.4 Calibration Results As noted earlier.5. < 0). 3.3) Dry 8 2.2) Temperate 101 2. as noted in Section 4.69) 5 ~ 41 (21) 29 ~ 2932 (179. # Values in the brackets represent the average values.66 ~ 3. Road types are defined as per QDMR classifications.1.37 (2.7) 30 ~ 30 (30) Dry 469 2 ~ 3.3) 29 ~ 348 (52. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A).84) 4 ~ 43 (12.9) Wet 233 2.8) Temperate 122 2. the HDM-4 default value of 1.5 (2.1) 188 ~ 3018 (595.7) 72 ~ 102 (99.0) before performing the roughness calibration.5 (2.4) 29 ~ 3275 (468. Soil reactivity is as per QDMR classifications. 4.5) 26 ~ 4807 (673.3 ~ 3. However.5. Austroads 2008 — 30 — . only time series roughness deterioration data were available for the calibration exercise.34 ~ 2. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index.2) 29 ~ 3971 (330.3 ~ 3.09 (2.6) Dry 196 2. As the HDM-4 roughness progression model is a function of cumulative changes in roughness due to structural rutting and cracking.5) 0 ~ 41 (13.3) 72 ~ 1500 (666.58 (2.81 4 744 Wet 8 2.65) 5 ~ 49 (24.78 ~ 3. 2.51 ~ 3. TI.12 (2.6) 2 ~ 61 (14.82) 5 ~ 16 (6.77) 5 ~ 38 (14.4) Wet 224 2.3) 36 ~ 4923 (778.55 (2.7) AMGB Reactive Non-reactive STGB Reactive Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 Soil reactivity3 Climate group4 No. distribution or use on network prohibited. of sections SNC (average)# Pavement age (average years)# AADT (avg)# Non-reactive Dry 16 2. wet (TI > 50).0 was assigned for the calibration factors of these components (i. Kcpa and Krst = 1.e. The available computing power (hardware and software) was sufficient to estimate the underlying rates of deterioration for the 5327 individual sections within a reasonable time frame.37 (2. Storage.3) Temperate 1 2.85) 4 ~ 53 (17.8) Dry 4 0 ~ 0 (0) 9 ~ 9 (9) 1567 ~ 1567 (1567) Wet 13 2.5) Wet 1 3.28 ~ 3. into the 57 group means (or average values) of the estimated deterioration rates. Personal use licence only. the calibration exercise for these sections was based on grouping the sections.3 ~ 3. temperate (0 < TI < 50). DR Non-reactive STSB Reactive Notes: 1.30 44 3971 Dry 1 2.87 (2.91) 1 ~ 14 (6) 400 ~ 2628 (1145.

52) 0.27 (0.31 NH Reactive STSB Non-reactive Reactive Austroads 2008 — 31 — Roughness progression (NRM/year) Calibration coefficient 5 (Kgm) .39 Temperate 7 0.74 (1.27 Dry 1 1.33 ~ 4. Similar to the results for the other states.34 (1.02 ~ 10.21 ~ 8. despite the fact that the group mean values were used as input parameters for the calibration.93 Wet 4 0.52 Dry 188 0.02 ~ 7. The correlation obtained between the calibration coefficients and their corresponding roughness deterioration rates was quite reasonable (r2 = 0.21) 0.28 ~ 8.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.01 (1.02 ~ 4.34 Wet 128 0.25 Wet 3 0.88 (1.49) 0.58 0.7 below shows some pavement characteristics that are part of the primary input parameters required for calibration and Table 4.21 ~ 4. It appeared that the subgrade soil type had more influence on the calibration coefficient than any other parameters.64) 0.47 ~ 1.67 (1. of sections Dry 6 2. Table 4. distribution or use on network prohibited.52 ~ 3.81) 0.50). for each group.0 and varied only moderately across various groups.23 ~ 3.94) 0.19 Dry 225 0.75 Temperate 12 0.74 Temperate 86 0.1 ~ 2.8: Calibration results of the pavement groups in Queensland Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.24) 0. Storage.65 (1.3 (4. including the estimated roughness deterioration rates and their corresponding calibration factors (Kgm).0 for a significant number of groups with reactive soil.50 0.34 Temperate 7 0.81) 0.16 Dry 1 3.19 (1.35) 0. Kgm values were generally less than the default HDM-4 value of 1.02) 0.9) 0.2 (2.39) 0.21 (3.1 ~ 12.91 (1. not the individual sections except for the eight groups where a single data point represented a group listed in the above table. It important to note that each data point plotted represents a group mean. Road type1 Pavement type2 AMGB Soil reactivity3 Non-reactive Reactive STGB Non-reactive Climate group4 No. Personal use licence only. Figure 4.15 Temperate 17 0. as indicated by K values becoming greater than 1.17 Wet 9 0.4 plots the relationships between the calibration coefficients and their corresponding roughness deterioration rates.09 ~ 7.22 Wet 97 0.8 lists the calibration results.51) 1.18) 0.65 (1.37 Temperate 254 0 ~ 7.03 (0.

69) 0.14) 0.68) 0.22 Wet 42 0 ~ 10.75) 0.21 ~ 6.50 Temperate 1 0.38 Temperate 6 0.57 Dry 425 0 ~ 11. Non-reactive STSB Reactive Austroads 2008 — 32 — Roughness progression (NRM/year) Calibration coefficient 5 (Kgm) .46) 0.56 0.15 (2.39 Wet 29 0. Personal use licence only.43 (0.48 Dry 21 0.33 Dry 10 0.2) 1.58 (1.96 (2.78 Temperate 107 0 ~ 6.27 (2.01 ~ 6. Storage.44 Non-reactive Dry 606 0 ~ 12.25 ~ 6.16 (1.6 ~ 8.57 (2.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 Soil reactivity3 Climate group4 No.08 Wet 1 6.83 (2.21 ~ 4.71 (1.2) 0.52 ~ 1.31) 1.30 1.12 Wet 6 0 ~ 6.33 (1.01 (3.92) 0.38 Temperate 27 0.55 STGB Reactive SS Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.1) 0. of sections AMGB Non-reactive Wet 5 0.86) 0. distribution or use on network prohibited.

56) 0.48 (2.51) 0.91 (2.40 0.8 ~ 10.4 (3. Non-reactive STSB AMGB STGB Reactive RR Non-reactive STSB Reactive Austroads 2008 — 33 — Roughness progression (NRM/year) 0.3) 0.48 (2.12 0.94) 0.70 Temperate 29 0.00 Wet 132 0.06 Dry 18 0. of sections Non-reactive Dry 6 0.02 Dry 302 0 ~ 21.24) 0.04 ~ 7.8 ~ 10.04 ~ 7.13 (1.82) 0. distribution or use on network prohibited.07 ~ 11.08 (4.54 (2.86 0.51) 0.85 Wet 419 0 ~ 18.52 Calibration coefficient 5 (Kgm) 0.03 ~ 6.08 ~ 16.3) 1.96 ~ 7.08 (4.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 Soil reactivity3 Climate group4 No.70 0.42 Temperate 126 0.02 ~ 13.15 (3.82) 0 ~ 18.3 ~ 5.99 (2.94) 0.66 0.24) 0.97) 0. Personal use licence only.75 (2.12 Reactive Dry 5 1.35) 1.11 ~ 7.00 1. Storage.91 (2.13 (1.35) 0 ~ 21.02 ~ 16.13) 1.22 (2.66 Temperate 181 0.97) 0.15 (3.42 (2.14 .75 (2.3 ~ 5.02 ~ 16.07 ~ 11.02 ~ 13.70 Wet 7 Non-reactive Dry 6 Reactive Dry 5 Non-reactive Dry 260 Temperate 181 Wet 419 Dry 302 Temperate 126 Wet 132 Dry 18 Temperate 29 Wet 7 Temperate 17 Wet 1 AMGB STGB RR Reactive Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.42 (2.02 1.40 0.28) 1.99 (2.08 ~ 16.70 0.85 1.28) 0.4 (2.11 ~ 7.51) 0.40 Non-reactive Dry 260 0.96 ~ 7.13) 0.42 1.56) 1.83) 1.4 (3.06 0.86 0.83) 0.4 (2.54 (2.

55 0.67 0.69) 0.22) 0.25 1.15 (1. TI.26 0.7 (2.74 0.61 11.24 (1.17 .72 0.22) 0.06 (1.9 (3. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A). < 0).81) 0.54 (1. of sections Non-reactive Dry 16 Reactive Wet Dry 1 1 Wet 6 Dry 469 Temperate 122 Wet 233 Dry 196 Temperate 101 Wet 224 Dry 8 Temperate 1 Wet 8 Dry 4 Wet 13 Non-reactive STGB Reactive DR Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.77 ~ 4.95 (1.14) 0 ~ 12. wet (TI > 50).2.1) Calibration coefficient 5 (Kgm) 0.04 0. 2. 4.94 (1. Austroads 2008 — 34 — Roughness progression (NRM/year) 0.82 (1.92) 0 ~ 15.84) 0. Storage.09) 0 ~ 12. Non-reactive STSB Reactive Notes: 1. distribution or use on network prohibited. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index. Road types are defined as per QDMR classifications. temperate (0 < TI < 50). 5.24 0.49) 1.27 (2.53 ~ 1.08 ~ 6.53 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Road type1 Pavement type2 AMGB Soil reactivity3 Climate group4 No.3) 0 ~ 2.90 0.01 ~ 14 (2.01 ~ 11.18 ~ 11. Revised calibration results obtained using the calibration approach described in Section 3. 3.12 2.92 0.18 ~ 6. Soil reactivity is as per QDMR data.44 1.82 (3.25 0.32 0. Personal use licence only.65 0.67) 0.06 ~ 8.

0 7. All sections have a length of approximately 300 m. whereas the un-sterilised sections. were subject to normal routine maintenance.498 1. a Transverse Profile Beam (TPB) for rut depth measurements across the lane width.4 0. The yearly monitoring was conducted independently in both lane directions for most sites. This allowed the two lane sections to be treated separately.6 0. Personal use licence only. based on the maintenance policy applied to them. For visual condition rating. Storage. were made available by TNZ for the RD model calibration exercise.0 2. major forms of surface defects and all types of structural cracking were recorded at each 50 m subsection. one in increasing chainage and the other in decreasing chainage as identified by the suffix ‘I’ and ‘D’. A comprehensive set of deterioration data was collected from the above sites using an ARRB Walking Profiler (WP) for roughness measurements. labelled with a prefix ‘CS’.8 Linear (Revised calibration) Calibration coefficient.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 2 Revised calibration 1.0 4. resulting in the number of individual calibration sections increasing from 63 to 124.4 1. Austroads 2008 — 35 — .6.6 New Zealand State Highway Network 4. distribution or use on network prohibited.0 3.8 0.0 5. and a Stationary Laser Profilometer (SLP) for texture measurements.0 6.4: Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for Queensland road network 4.1 Road Sections for RD Model Calibration The inventory and time series condition data for 63 calibration sections on the New Zealand state highway network established in 2001 specifically for the long-term pavement performance study.2 0 Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) for deflection measurements.6 R 2 = 0. sterilised and un-sterilised. 0. most are on two-lane two-way rural roads with both lanes being monitored on a yearly basis.0 1.2 1 0. were meant to be kept free from maintenance except for safety or emergency reasons. Kgm 1. The sections were split into two groups. respectively on the section label. The sterilised sections. with a prefix ‘CAL’ on the section identification label.0 Roughness progression (NRM/year) Figure 4.

Consequently. On this basis all 52 sections were calibrated. cracking and deflection collected on a yearly basis since the establishment of the calibration sections up to 2005 (or early 2006) for the New Zealand state highway network. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads As part of data preparation for the analysis. were made available by TNZ for the study. a HDM-4 default coefficient for cracking progression. a reasonable number of sections. rutting. Storage. Hence. rainfall and traffic. the estimation of the rate of cracking deterioration indicated that the rate of cracking deterioration was virtually nil. Also. no calibration of the RD model for cracking occurred because it would not contribute to roughness deterioration.2.6. The initial analysis identified and selected the sections experiencing surface condition deterioration over a minimum period of two consecutive years on the basis that a minimum of three data points were required for estimating deterioration. were available for calibration.6. that met the criteria for estimating deterioration and the decision rules described in Appendix B. 4. As noted previously. 4. distribution or use on network prohibited. maintenance data were not needed because the method of estimating the underlying rate of deterioration (Appendix B) excluded performance data that were suspected of being influenced by maintenance intervention. rutting and roughness. other data were supplied by TNZ including pavement characteristics. In addition to the performance data and inventory data. Personal use licence only. all data collected from the subsections of their main 300 m section were averaged to produce a single value representing each section. a review of all the cracking data (narrow plus wide cracks) revealed that the percentage of cracking for the majority of the 300 m sections was less than 1%. cracking models were not calibrated due to insufficient sections with significant rates of cracking. However. Austroads 2008 — 36 — .6. Given that calibration for each section took 15 to 30 minutes on average for both roughness and rutting. and maintenance history data. only 52 out 124 sections were estimated to experience both rutting and roughness deterioration. it was possible to complete the calibrations for all 52 sections individually within a reasonable time fame. As both cracking and rutting have an influence on roughness.4 Calibration Results Calibration estimated the rutting structural deterioration coefficients (Krst) and roughness progression coefficients (Kgm) for the New Zealand road sections. Kcpa. As noted earlier. After the initial analysis. Despite a short monitoring period. However. of unity was assumed for all sections and used as an input parameter for the calibration procedure described in Section 3. a section for calibration must therefore show positive deterioration trends in cracking.3 Maintenance Intervention Maintenance treatment data were available and described for each individual section. maintenance history such as the years of rehabilitation and resurfacing were important when both pavement and seal ages were used as part of the input data for calibration.2 Performance History An almost complete set of performance data including roughness. 4.

10. Grouping of the calibration sections was based on the following hierarchical structure: pavement type. the 52 calibrated sections were reduced to only 12 groups.10.9 and Table 4.70 and roughness (r2 = 0. where descriptive statistics of the group (mean. The correlation between the rates of deterioration for rutting (r2 = 0. they were reported in groups in the summary tables. traffic and climate.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Although the selected pavement sections were calibrated individually during the calibration. This form of result presentation was used in order to maintain consistency with those of the Australian states where the grouping needed to be done before processing because of the large number of sections used. Personal use licence only. As a result of grouping. Figure 4.10. Storage. A post-analysis investigation of these data revealed that one section experienced very low rates of deterioration and the other section showed unusually high rates of deterioration for both rutting and roughness over the deterioration period. This was a sound basis on which to treat these two data points as outliers for the correlation purpose. Table 4. minimum and maximum value and sample size) for pavement characteristics and calibration coefficients were presented. sterilisation.5 plots the relationship between the estimated rutting and roughness progression rates and the Krst and Kgm values. respectively. both Krst and Kgm values appear to be within typical and expected ranges of the calibration results achieved for the Australian states.9 and Table 4. The data points plotted for both rutting and roughness progressions represent individual pavement sections and not the group means as summarised in Table 4. distribution or use on network prohibited. although they resulted from the removal of two outliers representing the two asphalt on granular base sections (AMGB). Austroads 2008 — 37 — . From Table 4.85) and the K values for rutting and roughness were good. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.

73 (0.73 ) Humid 7 4 ~ 40 (20.55 (3.17 ) Sub-humid 4 4 ~ 8 (5 ) 2.9: Characteristics of the New Zealand pavement section groups for analysis Pavement type1 Sterilisation2 Traffic group3 Climate group4 No.9 ) Semi-arid 1 15 ~ 15 (15 ) 5.98 ) 0 ~ 7. STGB Low S Medium Notes: 1.67 ~ 3.03 ~ 0.6 ) 1 ~ 8.39 ~ 1. Austroads 2008 — 38 — . < 0).22 ) NA NS Medium Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Personal use licence only. temperate (0 < TI < 50).57 ) 0.73 ) 1.5 (3.13 (1.35 (1.23 ) 0.74 ) 0.3 ) 0.3 ~ 0.53 (0.62 (3.37 ) 0. Revised calibration results obtained using the calibration approach described in Section 3.55 ~ 4. 3.82 ) Semi-arid 2 40 ~ 40 (40 ) 0. 5.05 ~ 4.22 ~ 1.93 ) 0.39 ~ 1.45 ~ 10 (7.24 ~ 1.53 (0.44 (1.51 ) 0. Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A).42 ~ 0.71 ) 0.29 ~ 0.55 ) Sub-humid 5 4 ~ 22 (7.37 (1.76 (2.22 (1.87 (1.41 ) Semi-arid 2 4 ~ 40 (22 ) 0.4 (0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.27 ) 0.73 ~ 5.17 ) 2.17 ~ 0.55 (0.87 ) 0 ~ 4.73 (1.01 ~ 1.93 ) 0.21 ) 0. wet (TI > 50).71 ) 0.12 ~ 3. 2.7 ) Humid 5 4 ~ 22 (7.61 (0.22 ~ 0.17 ) Semi-arid 5 4 ~ 40 (20 ) 1.5 ) 4. Road types are defined as per QDMR classifications.24 ) 0. Soil reactivity is as per QDMR data.95 (0.25 ~ 2.05 (2.25 (0.62 (0. TI.37 (0.6 ) 0.06 (0.45 ~ 4.34 ~ 0.13 ) 0.65 (1.17 ~ 2.2.83 (1.99 (0.11 ~ 9.15 ~ 4.35 ) 0. of sections AMGB S Heavy Sub-humid Low Pavement age (years) SNP Rutting progressio n (mm/year) Roughness progression (NRM/year) 2 31 ~ 40 (35.39 ~ 1.41 ) 0. Climate group: dry (Thornthwaite Index.9 ~ 3.02 ~ 0.03 ) 0.86 ) 0.26 ~ 3.28 ) Sub-humid 11 4 ~ 21 (12 ) 0.81 ) Humid 2 12 ~ 12 (12 ) 1.05 (1. distribution or use on network prohibited.2 ~ 0. 4.13 ) Sub-humid 6 4 ~ 23 (13. Storage.44 ~ 3.73 (5.9 (3.26 ~ 1.6 ) 0.7 ~ 5.53 ) 0.07 (0.85 (2.07 (0.55 ~ 2.74 ) 0.75 (2.51 (2.

Pavement types are defined as per HDM-4 classifications (Appendix A). humid (1500<RF<3000) as per HDM-4 moisture classification.3 ~ 0.05 (2.45 ~ 10 (7.4 (0.17 ~ 1.45 ) Humid 2 1.51 (2. Personal use licence only.73 (5. 5.26 (0. medium (5000 < AADT < 15000).45 ~ 4.25 ~ 2.9 ~ 3.35 ) 0.85 (2.13 ~ 1.12 (0.9 (3.65 (1.71 ) 0. 4.4 ) Semi-arid 2 0.68 ) Humid 5 1 ~ 8.12 ) Sub-humid 6 2.78 (0.12 ~ 0. distribution or use on network prohibited.6 (0.10: Calibration results for the pavement groups for the New Zealand road network Pavement type1 Sterilisation2 AMGB S Traffic group3 Climate group4 No.12 ~ 2.85 (0.73 ) NA NS Medium Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.17 ~ 0.23 ) 0. 300<RF <800).27 ) 0.15 ~ 1.5 (3.74 ) 0. Traffic group: low (AADT < 5000). Revised calibration results obtained using the calibration approach described in Section 3.03 ) 0.12 ~ 0.35 (1.15 ~ 4. 2. Austroads 2008 — 39 — . sub-humid (800 < RF< 1600).4 (0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table 4.73 ~ 5.55 (3.93 ) 0.53 ) 0.2.63 ) Semi-arid 5 1.55 ~ 4.39 (0.37 (0.86 ) 0. Storage.55 ~ 2.15 ) Sub-humid 11 0. Sterilisation is used to flag whether or not the section is subject to the routine maintenance 3.11 ~ 0.25 ) Sub-humid 4 2.53 ) Semi-arid 1 5.16 (0.12 ~ 0.6 ) 0.7 ~ 5.12 ~ 0.74 ) Semi-arid 2 0. heavy (AADT > 15000).05 (1.14 ) Sub-humid 5 0.13 ) 0. of sections Heavy Sub-humid Low Rutting (Krst) Roughness (Kgm) 2 4.17 (0.49 (0.39 ) Humid 7 0.14 ~ 0. Climate group: semi-arid (Rainfall (RF).05 ~ 4. STGB Low S RD model coefficients5 Medium Notes: 1.

0 R2 = 0.0 Roughness progression (NRM/year) Figure 4. Storage.0 .0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.5: Relationship between rate of deterioration and RD model coefficients for New Zealand State Highway network Austroads 2008 — 40 — 12. 0.0 10. distribution or use on network prohibited.0 3.0 Revised calibration Outliers Linear (Revised calibration) 3.0 8.0 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 12.0 Revis ed calibration Outliers Linear (Revis ed calibration) 10.0 2.0 4.0 R 2 = 0.0 1.7025 6.0 6.0 4.8477 K gm values Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.0 2. Personal use licence only.0 2.0 4.0 K rst values 8.0 Rutting progression (mm/year) 4.

When comparing the calibration coefficient (K) values with the estimated rate of pavement deterioration.2 Tasmanian Road Network A total of 58 pavement sections from the Department of Infrastructure. the calibration of all the 14765 sections was not undertaken. The results from the current RD model calibration were compared with the values obtained from a previous calibration study.7. The correlation coefficients (r2) from the current study were greater than 0. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. traffic loading and climate condition.13.82. The correlation coefficients (r2) between the calibration values and the estimated rates of deterioration for the revised method were greater than 0. Instead. pavement type. road network were calibrated by this study.7 Summary of Calibration Factors 4. 4.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 4. Storage. 4.7. The mean values of the calibration coefficients derived from the current and previous studies were comparable. distribution or use on network prohibited. traffic loading and climate condition in order to estimate and compare mean calibration coefficient (K) values from the current calibration study with those from a previous calibration study. the selected sections were grouped according to road type. Energy and Resources (DIER). pavement type.39. The mean values of observed and predicted deterioration for each group of pavements were estimated or assumed and calibration was based on these mean values. A comparison of the mean K values for each group of pavements indicated that the current study generally yielded lower K values compared to the K values from the previous study. Tasmania. the results from the current calibration study showed an improved correlation compared to the results from the previous calibration study.66. traffic loading and climatic conditions prior to calibration.7. rutting and roughness and used in the current study. The current study estimated lower K values (Krst and Kgm) because the observed rates of deterioration were estimated to be lower. although the current study generally estimated lower mean values compared to those from the previous study.1 Victorian Road Network A total of 55 asphalt and sprayed seal pavement sections were used for RD model calibration in Victoria based on their observed deterioration using the objective estimation approach outlined above. while those from the previous study were only 0. Because of limited computational capacity. pavement type. These sections were grouped according to road type.3 South Australian Road Network Of the 129000 pavement sections with deterioration data available. Personal use licence only. pavement sections were grouped in terms of road type. Mean values of the calibrated coefficients (Krst and Kgm) were estimated for each group of pavements. Austroads 2008 — 41 — . while the correlation coefficients (r2) for the previous study were less than 0. only 14765 sections were estimated to be experiencing deterioration concurrently with cracking. The calibration results from the current study were good because the correlation between the calibration K values and the estimated rate of deterioration was high. Similar to the Victorian network.

distribution or use on network prohibited.45). 4. 4. rutting and roughness (Kgm. Due to the large number of sections representing the network.5 New Zealand State Highway Network A large data set from 63 pavement sections. Personal use licence only. are similar to the mean values used to group the pavement sections. each 1 km in length. based on the mean values of estimated and predicted deterioration. rutting. was provided by Transit New Zealand (TNZ). were made available by the Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR) for the study. Performance data from 2001 to 2005 including roughness.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The calibration coefficients for cracking. cracking and deflection were collected either from each lane of a twolane two-way road or from one of the lanes on a divided carriageway. (2) deterioration identified and estimated by the principles and decision rules of the underlying rate of deterioration approach outlined above. traffic loading and climate conditions. Storage. the number of sections for the calibration study was reduced by grouping the sections based on the usual criteria of road type. traffic and inventory data for over 28600 pavement sections. were used as input data for calibration. Roughness deterioration. pavement type.50) given that there was some reduction in the quality of input data due to using mean values of deterioration. and reasonable for roughness (r2 = 0.4 Queensland Road Network Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. generally less than the HDM-4 default value of 1. the total number of lane sections available for the analysis increased to 124. Austroads 2008 — 42 — . The correlations between the calibration coefficients and the estimated rates of deterioration were strong (r2 = 0. With future improvements in computational capacity and an efficient deterioration algorithm. The calibration coefficients for rutting and roughness (Krst and Kgm) were plotted against and correlated with their corresponding estimated rates of deterioration. Of these. practically nil for cracking. each 300 m in length and monitored on a yearly basis to date. the selection of pavement sections for calibration was based on the estimation of underlying rate of deterioration to represent the observed deterioration. indicating that the calibration approach produced reliable estimates. It should be noted that these K values are applicable to pavement sections whose characteristics. more than 5300 sections had satisfied the selection criteria which included the following: (1) traffic with AADT less than 5000. in terms of road and pavement type.89). RD models were calibrated only for rutting and roughness using input data from the individual sections.7. produced a range of calibration coefficient. K values.0. Krst and Kgm) for each group of South Australian pavements are presented in this report. It was found that 54 of the 124 sections showed concurrent increases in rutting and roughness whereas only a small number of sections were experiencing cracking deterioration. The correlation between group means of the estimated rate of deterioration and the K values was reasonable (r2 = 0. The roughness calibration of 57 section groups. As each lane was treated independently. The correlation between the calibration coefficient K values and the estimated rate of deterioration was high for rutting (r2 = 0. Group mean values of observed and predicted deterioration. it may be possible to estimate the deterioration of all individual pavement sections in a large road network so that the mean calibration coefficient K values for various groups of roads could be estimated more accurately.70 and 0. As for the Australian states.85 for rutting and roughness respectively).7. Consequently. traffic loading and climatic conditions. not the values of individual sections. and.

distribution or use on network prohibited. except for South Australia. Standardised national HDM-4 RD models are not likely to be appropriate for use in Australia and New Zealand.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 4. when based on local performance data from limited sections. the calibrated RD models do not fully account for all the factors (variables) that influence pavement deterioration predictions in other regions. Austroads 2008 — 43 — . Consequently. Calibration of all the HDM-4 RD models demands detailed and high quality long term data. Because of the limited availability of all the necessary data from the five road networks. Personal use licence only.6 Comparison of Calibration Factors The HDM-4 RD models require many independent variables.7. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Therefore. usually only the roughness and rutting RD models for each SRA were calibrated using this data. Storage. It is therefore not advisable to apply the RD model calibration coefficients obtained from this analysis to road networks other than the ones they represent. the HDM-4 RD models should be calibrated for the local conditions of each SRA separately.

2–0.2) 0. asphalt 0.9) – Tasmania South Australia Queensland New Zealand Austroads 2008 — 44 — .5) – sealed granular 0.7) 0.1: Summary of HDM-4 RD calibration results AMA Location Pavement type Rutting coefficient (Krst) range Roughness coefficient (Kgm) range Cracking coefficient (Kcpa) range Victoria.0 (5. Table 5.1–0.4 (0.2–1. climates.9 (1.2–8.1–0. Storage.3 (0.3) – asphalt 0. and traffic loads.2–0.3) sealed granular 0.8) – sealed granular 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 5 WORK SUMMARY The calibration of a range of HDM-4 RD models was completed using the data made available by the SRAs in 2005/06 and 2006/07.2–5. Personal use licence only.2–8.1–1.4) 0. Table 5.1 provides an overall summary of the RD calibrations based on the data made available from the states and New Zealand for the asphalt and sealed granular pavement types for a range of road types.0) 0.7 (0.1–2.0) 0.7 (0.0 (1. Tasmania.9) – sealed granular – 0. distribution or use on network prohibited.9–2. cracking for road networks in Victoria.4) – sealed granular 0.9 (1.1–2.6) – asphalt 4.2–3.6) 0. where possible.6 (1.5–10.2 (1.3–1.8 (0.0) 0. rutting and.1–1.4) asphalt – 0.8 (2.5) – asphalt 0.2 (0.8 (0.0 (0.3–1.2–0.5–3. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.8 (0.1) 0. The following outcomes were achieved: ƒ estimation of calibration coefficients for roughness.0 (0.5 (4.0 (0. South Australia and Queensland ƒ estimation of calibration coefficients for roughness and rutting for the State Highway network in New Zealand.9) 0.5 (0.6) 0.3–4.

Tasmania. Austroads 2008 — 45 — . It should be noted that the RD calibration coefficients from the objective approach produced strong correlation with the estimated rate of deterioration. The objective approach for estimating underlying rate of deterioration was based on previous Austroads work. 6. although the objective approach yielded generally lower calibration values compared to those from the previous method. rutting and roughness RD models to match the estimated observed rate of underlying deterioration.1 Conclusions HDM-4 road deterioration (RD) models for roughness and rutting were calibrated to suit road sections in Victoria. The calibration results based on the objective approach for estimating deterioration were compared with those from a previous method for results where they were available. An objective approach for estimating the observed rate of underlying deterioration as part of the calibration process was documented in this report. South Australia and New Zealand. Tasmania and Queensland due to the low quality of the available data. The quality of the cracking data from South Australia appeared reasonable.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 6. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. it may be possible to estimate the deterioration of all individual pavement sections in a large road network so that the mean calibration coefficient K values for various groups of roads can be estimated more accurately. This process calibrated the cracking. Cracking deterioration models were not calibrated for Victoria. The comparison showed that the calibrations from both methods were comparable. Storage. as expected. The New Zealand cracking data was not used because the data did not have significant cracking.2 Recommendation With future improvements in computational capacity and an efficient deterioration algorithm. Only calibration for roughness was carried out for Queensland as this was the only performance data of this type available for the study. although calibration of the cracking model showed no correlation between calibration coefficients and estimated deterioration rates of cracking. distribution or use on network prohibited. Personal use licence only.

T 2005. A guide to calibration and adaptation. HDM-4 series of publications. Paris. Storage. ARRB Group. final project’. Z & Martin. Brasilia. Hoque. R 2004a. GEIPOT 1982. maintenance. Roper. Choummanivong. Morosiuk. ARRB Group. highway development and management. JB 2001. Victoria. T. HDM-4 series of publications. Vermont South. Vermont South. Victoria. ITRR technical report RP/19/83. G. Washington DC. highway development and management. contract report RC3296-1. Evaluation of pavement behaviour for major rehabilitation of roads. Washington DC. CSIR. World Bank. Victoria. T 2006b. 5. T. draft contract report RC4309. & PIARC. ARRB Transport Research. Hoque. Victoria. vol. Michel. France. M & Hoque. Z 2006. HDM-4 series of publications. M & Odoki. L. distribution or use on network prohibited. T & Hoque. Development of road condition performance profiles: model documentation. & PIARC. inspection and causes’. Austroads 2008 — 46 — . Toole. France. ‘Under-performing pavements. Vermont South. South Africa. Victoria. World Bank. contract report REAT1064. T 2004b. ‘Development of interim deterioration (RD) models for sealed granular roads’. Z & Martin. ARRB Transport Research. final report. ‘Selection of additional sites for inclusion in Austroads long term pavement performance study – final report’. Vermont South. highway development and management. Martin. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. contract report RC4202-3. Vermont South. ‘Implementation of HDM-4 in Tasmania: part 1 – project summary and results of strategy analysis’. ‘Development of interim deterioration (RD) models for sealed granular and asphalt roads’. ARRB Group. ARRB Group. contract report RC4387-2. R & Martin. classification. Vermont South. Ministry of Transport. and utilisation (PICR). Victoria. JB & Kerali. & PIARC. Washington DC. George. 4. ‘Improved HDM-4 model calibration factors and application guidelines for sealed Roads in Victoria. T. Martin. CR 1983. Odoki. ‘Methodology for desk-top review to identify ‘good’ and ‘poor’ pavement performance’. 6. N & Roper. ARRB Group. Research on the interrelationships between costs of highway construction. T 2006a. Z 2006. Paris. vol. World Bank. Z 2005. Toole. contact report RC2464 . HDM-4 analytical framework and model descriptions. CR & Paterson W 2000. HDM-4 modelling road deterioration and works effects. Martin. Victoria. contract report REAT 1064. Riley. vol. Enpresa Brasileria de Planejamento de Transportes (GEIPOT). identification.part 1. Vermont South. contact report REAT-1067. ARRB Group.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads REFERENCES Bennett. Z & Martin. Paris. Vermont South. Personal use licence only. Victoria. Freeme. France. T & Hoque. HGR 2000. Hoque.

Table A 1: Surface type HDM-4 Bituminous pavement classification system Surface material Base type AC PMA AB AMSB LS PA TNA AP SMA Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads APPENDIX A A. AMAB CS SB CM AMGB GM AB RAC Pavement type CRS GB HRA AM Base material AMAP FDA Xx CAPE DBSD SBSD ST SL AB STAB CS SB Xx STGB GM AB PM Notes: CRS GB STSB LS TNA AP STAP FDA AM Asphalt mix GB Granular base ST Surface treatment AB Asphalt base AC Asphaltic concrete AP Asphalt pavement HRA Hot rolled asphalt SB Stabilised base PMA Polymer modified asphalt CS Crushed stone RAC Rubberised asphalt concrete GM Natural gravel CM Soft bitumen mix (cold mix) AB Asphalt base PA Porous asphalt CS Cement stabilisation SMA Stone mastic LS Lime stabilisation CAPE Cape seal TNA Thin surfacing (< 100 mm) DBSD Double bituminous surface dressing FDA Thick surfacing (> 100 mm) SBSD Single bituminous surface dressing PM Penetration macadam SL Slurry seal Xx User defined Austroads 2008 — 47 — . distribution or use on network prohibited. Personal use licence only. CLASSIFICATIONS AND DETERIORATION MODELS Pavement Classifications The HDM-4 pavement classification system is shown in Table A 1 and generic bituminous pavement types are shown in Table A 2.1 HDM-4 PAVEMENT CODES. Storage.

distribution or use on network prohibited. Separate models are used for each component and they are predicted as a function of the factors that are known to contribute to their development and progression. Personal use licence only. Therefore models related to wide structural cracking are not included here.1HSE) + (1-KA)(1-KW) a0 * exp[a1 HSE + a2 loge CMOD + a3 loge DEF + a4 (YE4) (DEF)] ]+ CRT Austroads 2008 — 48 — A.5% of the carriageway surface area is cracked. new surfacing) Kcia {CDS2 a0 exp[a1 HSE + a2 loge CMOD + a3 loge DEF + a4 (YE4) (DEF)] + CRT} A.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table A 2: Generic HDM-4 bituminous pavement types Pavement type Surface type Base type Description AMGB AM GB Asphalt mix on granular base AMAB AM AB Asphalt mix on asphalt (dense bitumen macadam) base AMSB AM SB Asphalt mix on stabilised base AMAP AM AP Asphalt mix on asphalt pavement STGB ST GB Surface treatment on granular base STAB ST AB Surface treatment on asphalt (dense bitumen macadam) base STSB ST SB Surface treatment on stabilised base STAP ST AP Surface treatment on asphalt pavement A.1 Crack Modelling Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.2 . Initiation of all structural cracking Crack initiation is assumed to occur when 0.2KW) (1+0.2 Deterioration Models A. Storage. overlays or reseals) Kcia {CDS2 [(0.8KA + 0.2. Structural cracking Structural cracking is load and age/environment associated cracking.1 0 (that is. Hence not covered here. The HDM-4 cracking model considers two components of cracking: ƒ structural cracking ƒ transverse thermal cracking – occurs in mainly freeze/thaw conditions. In this report only all structural cracking was considered. Two types of structural cracking are considered – all structural cracking and wide structural cracking. Initiation of all structural cracking depends on the base: ƒ Stabilised base If HSOLD = ICA = If HSOLD > ICA = 0 (that is.

Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads ƒ Other bases If HSOLD = ICA = If HSOLD > 0 (that is. 0). SL and CAPE = Kcia {CDS2 [max(a0 exp[a1 SNP + a2 (YE4/SNP2)] * max(1-PCRA/a3. Personal use licence only. new surfacing) Kcia {CDS2 a0 exp[a1 SNP + a2 (YE4/SNP2)] + CRT} A. default values are given in Table A 3.3 0 (that is.0). 1) min (100. overlays or reseals) For all surface materials except CM. ICA where: Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.05 max (PCRW – 10. HSNEW + (1-KW) HSOLD) calibration factor for initiation of all structural cracking crack retardation time due to maintenance (years) model coefficients.4 Austroads 2008 — 49 — A. distribution or use on network prohibited.a4)]+ CRT} ICA CDS YE4 SNP DEF CMOD = = = = = = HSNEW HSOLD PCRA = = = PCRW = KW KA HSE Kcia CRT a0 to a4 = = = = = = time to initiation of all structural cracks (years) construction defects indicator for bituminous surfacings annual number of equivalent standard axles (millions/lane) average adjusted structural number of the pavement mean Benkelman Beam deflection in both wheel paths (mm) resilient modulus of soil cement (GPa) (in the range between 0 and 30 GPa for most soils) thickness of the most recent surfacing (mm) total thickness of previous underlying surfacing layers (mm) area of all cracking before latest reseal or overlay (% of total carriageway area) area of wide cracking before latest reseal or overlay (% of total carriageway area) min(0.05 max (PCRA – 10. Storage. SL and CAPE ICA = ƒ Kcia {CDS2 [max(a0 exp[a1 SNP + a2 (YE4/SNP2)] * max(1PCRW/a3.5 .0). 1) min (0. a4HSNEW)] + CRT} For surface materials . 0).CM. A.

4 4.12 0.371 -0. min[(AGE2 – ICA).14 -17.9 If ACAa < 50 and (ACAa + dACA) > 50 then dACA = Kpca [CRP/CDS] (100 – C1(1/a1) .2 0 -20.025 >0 A.1 30 0.3 4.4 All 0 A.7 20 1.12 0.14 -17.21 0.14 -17.21 0.ACAa) A.8 If Y ≥ 0 then dACA = Kpca [CRP/CDS] ZA (Y(1/a1) – SCA) A.5 13.ACAa] Austroads 2008 — 50 — A.14 -17.ACAa)] Y = a0 a1 ZA δtA + SCAa1 A.1 1.2 0 -20.14 CM >0 A. CAPE >0 A.6 Progression of all structural cracking commences when δtA > 0 or ACAa > 0 where If ACAa > 0 δtA = 1.371 -0.2 0 AMAB All AMAP All AMSB All Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.371 -0.12 STSB All 0 A. Storage.35 0.2 1.14 -17. otherwise ZA = 1 ACAa = max(ACAa.5 13.21 0.1 30 0.4 4. CAPE >0 A.3 4.4 0 A.3 13.87 Progression of all structural cracking dACA = Kcpa [CRP/CDS] ZA [(ZA a0 a1 δtA + SCAa1)1/a1 – SCA] A.7 If Y < 0 then dACA = Kpca [CRP/CDS] (100 .4 4.2 0 -20. CAPE >0 A.1 30 0.2 1.7 All STGB a3 All except SL.1 1.4 13.87 >0 A.14 -17.0.22 SL.418 -2. CAPE >0 A.14 -17.371 -0. otherwise δtA = max {0.4 4.025 0 A.21 0.21 0.1 20 0.025 STAP All >0 A.025 -20.12 SL.87 0 A. 1]} If ACAa >= 50 then ZA = -1.4 4.418 -2. (100 . 0.12 0.3 13.10 .21 0.1 >0 A.4 4.7 All except SL.87 >0 A.418 -2.21 0.21 0.2 0 -20.1 20 0.12 0.5) SCA = min[ACAa.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table A 3: Pavement type AMGB Default coefficient values for initiation of all structural cracking models Surface material HSOLD value Equation a0 a1 a2 All 0 A. Personal use licence only.7 20 1. distribution or use on network prohibited.035 0.035 0.1 All except CM >0 A.418 -2.7 20 0.035 0. STAB a4 -17.1 30 0.

34 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads where C1 = A.13 2.35 0.35 0. overlay. given by CRP = 1 – 0. max{[2(50a1) .45 0.12 CRT a0 & a1 Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.13 1.41 1.28 0.11 dACA = incremental change in area of all structural cracking during the analysis year (% of total carriageway area) ACAa = area of all structural cracking at the start of the analysis year δtA = AGE2 = ICA = fraction of analysis year in which all structural cracking progression applies pavement surfacing age since last reseal.32 0.13 2. Table A 4: Default coefficient values for progression of all structural cracking Pavement type AMGB All All except CM CM AMAB All AMAP All AMSB All STGB All HSOLD value STAP All All except SL.84 1. reconstruction or new construction (years) time to initiation of all structural cracking (years) Kcpa = calibration factor for progression of all structural cracking CRP = retardation of cracking progression due to preventive treatment.34 0.41 1. Austroads 2008 — 51 — .35 0.34 Rut Depth Models Rutting is defined as the permanent (unrecoverable) deformation within pavement layers.07 2.32 0. Personal use licence only. distribution or use on network prohibited. CAPE All STSB All STAB A.2 Surface material 0 >0 >0 0 >0 >0 0 >0 0 >0 0 >0 >0 >0 0 >0 All cracking a0 a1 1. default values are given in Table A 4.a0 a1 δtA]. Storage.07 1.SCAa1 .28 0. CAPE SL.76 2.41 1. The rut depth model is based on there being four components to rutting: ƒ initial densification ƒ structural deterioration ƒ plastic deformation ƒ wear from studded tyres.07 2.34 0.07 2.76 2.2.28 0.34 0.45 0.28 0.41 2. 0] model coefficients.84 1.41 0.

. ravelling. AMAB. i. Table A 5: Default coefficient values for initial densification model Pavement type a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 AMGB.14 . sub-base and selected subgrade layers.e. Initial densification The initial densification depends upon the degree of compaction of the base. Storage. a0 to a4 = The initial densification only applies to new construction or reconstruction that involve the construction of a new base layer (i. STAP 0 0 0 0 0 Structural deterioration Separate terms are proposed for structural deformation without cracking and structural deformation after cracking as follows: ƒ Structural deformation without cracking ΔRDSTuc ƒ = Krst (a0 SNPa1 YE4a2 COMPa3) A. for a period of time of one year. cracking. The initial densification is: RD0 = Krid [a0 (YE4 106)(a1 + a2 DEF) SNPa3 COMPa4] A. Personal use licence only.30 AMAP.502 -2.e. potholing and edge break) at the end of the year have been calculated. AMSB. default values are given in Table A 5. COMP.09 0. AGE4 is defined as follows: AGE4 = age since reconstruction (including base) or new construction (years).e. STSB 51740 0.13 Structural deformation after cracking ΔRDSTcrk = Krst (a0 SNPa1 YE4a2 MMPa3 ACXaa4) P Austroads 2008 — 52 — A. from when AGE4 = 0). COMP = relative compaction in percent Krid = initial rut densification factor model coefficients. Rut depth modelling will be performed after the values of all the surface distresses (i. STGB. STAB. distribution or use on network prohibited.0348 -0.12 where RD0 = rutting due to initial densification (mm) DEF = Benkelman Beam deflection (mm) YE4 = annual number of equivalent standard axles (millions/lane) SNP = average annual adjusted structural number of the pavement Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The rut depth at any time is the sum of the four components.

Austroads 2008 — 53 — . Personal use licence only.11 Plastic deformation The plastic deformation model includes a variable. CDS.16 where Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.3 After cracking All pavement types 0.17 where ΔRDPD = incremental increase in plastic deformation in the analysis year (mm) CDS = construction defects indicator for bituminous surfacings YE4 = annual number of equivalent standard axles (millions/lane) Sh = speed of highway vehicles (km/h) HS = total thickness of bituminous surfacing (mm) Krpd = a0 to a2 = calibration factor for plastic deformation model coefficients.14 1. Table A 6: Default coefficient values for structural deformation model Pavement type a0 a1 a2 a3 Without cracking All pavement types 44950 -1.14 0.0000248 -0. distribution or use on network prohibited.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The total annual incremental increase in structural deformation is as follows: If ACRA = 0 then ΔRDST = ΔRDSTuc A. Storage. default values are given in Table A 7. default values are given in Table A 6. The general plastic deformation model is given by: ΔRDPD = Krpd CDS3 a0 YE4 Sha1 HSa2 A.15 If ACRA > 0 then ΔRDST = ΔRDSTuc + ΔRDSTcrk A.07 a4 1. ΔRDST = total increment increase in structural deformation in the analysis year (mm) ΔRDSTuc = total increment increase in structural deformation without cracking in the analysis year (mm) ΔRDSTcrk = total increment increase in structural deformation after cracking in the analysis year (mm) MMP = mean monthly precipitation (mm/month) ACXa = area of indexed cracking at the beginning of the analysis year (% of total carriageway area) SNP = average annual adjusted structural number of the pavement YE4 = annual number of equivalent standard axles (millions/lane) Krst = calibration factor for structural deformation a0 to a4 = model coefficients.11 -2.84 0. which indicates whether the surfacing is prone to plastic deformation.

default values are given in Table A 8.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table A 7: Default coefficient values for plastic deformation model Surface type a0 a1 a2 AM 2.9 – 0.0 -0..78 0. distribution or use on network prohibited.18 where ΔRDW = incremental rut depth due to studded tyres. SALT = variable for salted or unsalted roads (2 = salted.20 otherwise Standard deviation of rut depth The standard deviation of rut depth is used in the roughness model.0000248 1.71 ST 0 -0. 1 = unsalted) W = road width in m.e.21 . It is calculated from the mean total rut depth as: RDSb = max [0. (i. in mm PASS = annual number of vehicles with studded tyres in one direction.19 ΔRDM = ΔRDST + ΔRDPD + ΔRDW A. (0. ΔRDW Krsw [a0 PASSa1 Wa2 Sa3 SALTa4 ] = A.32 Total rut depth If AGE4 <= 1 ΔRDM = RD0 + ΔRDPD + ΔRDW A. in thousands S = average traffic speed in km/h Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.3.46 -0. the carriageway width plus total shoulder width) Krsw = calibration factor for surface wear model coefficients.04 RDMb)] RDMb where RDSb = standard deviation of rut depth at the end of the year (mm) RDMb = mean rut depth at the end of the analysis year (mm) Austroads 2008 — 54 — A. Personal use licence only.71 Surface wear The surface wear model is applied to environments where vehicles use studded tyres during the freezing period. a0 to a4 = Table A 8: Default coefficient values for surface wear model Pavement type a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 All pavement types 0.22 0. Storage.78 0.46 1.

3 Roughness The roughness model consists of the predictions for each component of roughness (cracking. a2).2. 0. and maintenance). disintegration. reconstruction or new construction (years) environmental coefficient. ΔRIs = a0 exp (m Kgm AGE3) (1 + SNPKb)-5 YE4 A.24 and Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.5] A.e. 1.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads A. and where ΔRIs = incremental change in roughness due to structural deterioration during the analysis year (IRI m/km) dSNPK = reduction in the structural number of pavement due to cracking SNPKb = adjusted structural number of pavement for cracking at the end of the analysis year SNPa = adjusted structural number of pavement at the start of the analysis year ACXa = area of indexed cracking at the start of the analysis year (% of total carriageway area) PACX = area of previous indexed cracking in the old surfacing. i.22 SNPKb = max [(SNPa – dSNPK). The surface distress values used in predicting roughness are those that have been adjusted so that the total damaged surface area plus the undamaged area equals 100%.23 dSNPK = Ksnpk a0 {min (a1. values are given in Table A 9 calibration factor for environmental coefficient calibration factor for SNPK model coefficients.39 PCRW HSNEW = thickness of the most recent surfacing (mm) HSOLD = total thickness of previous underlying bituminous surfacing layers (mm) AGE3 = m = Kgm = Ksnpk = a0 to a2 = pavement age since last overlay (rehabilitation). The total incremental roughness is the sum of these components. distribution or use on network prohibited. Austroads 2008 — 55 — . default values are given in Table A10. deformation. Structural The structural component of roughness relates to the deformation in the pavement materials under the shear stress imposed by traffic loading. Personal use licence only. ACXa) HSNEW + max [min (ACXa – PACX. Storage. 0] HSOLD A.62 PCRA + 0.

1).060 0. default value is given in Table A.25 (CW .Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Table A 9: Moisture classification Tropical Roughness environmental coefficient ‘m’ by climate zones Temperature classification Sub-tropical hot Sub-tropical cool Temperate cool Temperate freeze Arid 0.10.200 Per-humid 0. distribution or use on network prohibited. This is predicted using the following equation: FM = (max [min {0.25 where ΔRIc = Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.70 Cracking The incremental change in roughness due to cracking is given by: ΔRIc = a0 ΔACRA A.030 0.015 0. Storage.020 0. Personal use licence only. ΔACRA = a0 = the change in roughness due to cracking during the analysis year (IRI m/km) incremental area of total cracking during the analysis year (% of total carriageway area) model coefficient.025 0.025 0.010 0.100 0.025 0.010 0. default value is given in Table A.040 Semi-arid 0.30 0.015 0. 0]) max (1 .27 .025 0. Austroads 2008 — 56 — A.035 0. Potholing The potholing effect depends upon the number of vehicles which actually hit the pothole which in turn depends upon the traffic volume and the freedom to manoeuvre.060 0.040 0.AADT/5000.060 Sub-humid 0.005 0.26 where: ΔRIr = ΔRDS = a0 = incremental change in roughness due to rutting during the analysis year (IRI m/km) incremental increase in the standard deviation of rut depth during the analysis year (mm) (= RDSb – RDSa) model coefficient.040 0. 0) where: FM = the freedom to manoeuvre CW = carriageway width in m AADT = the two-way traffic flow in vehicle/day.100 Humid 0.3).10. Rutting The incremental change in roughness due to variation of rut depth is given by: ΔRIr = a0 ΔRDS A.

incremental change in roughness due to potholing during the analysis year (IRI m/km) a0 to a2 = time lapse factor model coefficients. This is given by: ΔRIe = m*Kgm RIa A.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The change in roughness is calculated as follows: ƒ If nil patching (TFL = 1) or 100% patching policy options is specified.30 where: ΔRIe = RIa = Kgm = m = incremental change in roughness due to environment during the analysis year (IRI m/km) the roughness at the start of the analysis year (IRI in m/km) calibration factor for the environmental component of roughness environmental coefficient. and also foundation movements. Total change in roughness ΔRI = Kgp [ΔRIs + ΔRIc + ΔRIr + ΔRIt] + ΔRIe where ΔRI = total incremental change in roughness during the analysis year (IRI m/km) Kgp = calibration factor for roughness progression.31 .10. Storage.29 where: ΔRIt = FM = freedom to manoeuvre CW = carriageway width (m) AADT = annual average daily traffic (veh/day) ΔNPT = incremental number of potholes per km during the analysis year NPTa = number of potholes per km at the start of the analysis year TLF = Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. Environment The environmental component of roughness is due to factors which include temperature and moisture fluctuations. distribution or use on network prohibited. Personal use licence only.FM) [{NPTa * TLF + (ΔNPT*TLF)/2}a2 .FM) ΔNPT * (NPTa + NPT/2)a2 A. then ΔRIt = a0 (a1 . default values are given in Table A. Austroads 2008 — 57 — A.NPTaa2] A.28 Otherwise (partial policy options) ΔRIt = a0 (a1 .

0066 Rutting A.26 0.32 The annual average roughness for a given analysis year is calculated as: RIav = 0.0000758 Cracking A. a0) A.00019 Austroads 2008 — 58 — a1 a2 63.33 where RIa = roughness of the pavement at the start of the analysis year (IRI m/km) RIb = roughness of the pavement at the end of the analysis year (IRI m/km) a0 = RIav = upper limit of pavement roughness.24 0.22 134 dSNPK A. Pavement type All pavement types Default coefficient values for roughness component Roughness component Equation a0 Structural A.5*(RIa + RIb) A.0 40. (default = 16 IRI m/km) annual average roughness of the pavement for the analysis year (IRI m/km) Table A 10: Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. distribution or use on network prohibited. Personal use licence only.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads The roughness at the end of the year is given by: RIb = min [(RIa + ΔRI).28 0. Storage.088 Potholing A.0 2.0 1.5 .25 0.

ƒ Deterioration estimates are made from data post the latest rehabilitation treatment (Figure B 2 for roughness example).4 roughness data 'latest' deterioration estimate 'early' deterioration estimate 0.1 ESTIMATION OF UNDERLYING RATE OF DETERIORATION Principles of Estimating Deterioration The following principles were adhered to in estimating deterioration from the time series of distress deterioration data for each pavement segment (Martin and Hoque 2006): ƒ Deterioration estimates measure the underlying rate of the ‘latest’ deterioration. the deterioration of the pavement that is not influenced by the immediate impact of maintenance treatments (Figure B 1 for roughness example). that is.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time (years) Figure B 1: ‘Latest’ deterioration estimate (roughness example) Austroads 2008 — 59 — 7 8 .2 Roughness Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. including identifying outliers that are errors in measurement and not related to previous or later measurements. Storage. Personal use licence only.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads APPENDIX B B.6 'latest' deterioration trend 0.8 immediate impact of maintenance (or data scatter?) 0. 1. ƒ Some allowance for ‘noise’ in the data must be considered. ƒ Estimates are based on an absolute minimum of three consecutive ‘valid’ data points. distribution or use on network prohibited. 'early' deterioration trend 1. although four consecutive points are more reliable.

A decrease of more than ML over a period of up to two years between two consecutive data points was assumed to be the result of either rehabilitation or a major maintenance intervention activity.2 'latest' deterioration estimate 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. the data point was considered ‘valid’ for estimating deterioration (Figure B 4).2 Estimated deterioration post rehabilitation (roughness example) Decision Rules The following decision rules were used for estimating the latest underlying rate of deterioration: 1. 2. and to allow for ‘noise’ in the data. two terms are defined: (a) the maximum limit (ML) is defined as the upper limit of consecutive deterioration that can be acceptable. 3.6 0. 5. and.8 0.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 1. that is. An increase of up to ML over a period of up to two years between two consecutive data points was considered acceptable. Time (years) Figure B 2: B. The limits assumed for ML and TL are shown in Table B 1 4.2 decrease due to rehab.4 roughness data 0. Austroads 2008 — 60 — . The analysis considers all time series data provided they are considered ‘valid’. Roughness 1 'latest' deterioration estimate 0. that is. An increase of more than ML over a period of up to two years between two consecutive data points was considered unacceptable (identified suspected outlier) where this increase was contrary to the trend line which includes more recent time series data (Figure B 5). the data point was considered ‘valid’ for estimating deterioration (Figure B 3). distribution or use on network prohibited. Storage. To avoid unexpected increases in deterioration. 6. or the effect of maintenance. (b) the tolerance limit (TL) is defined as the maximum improved condition allowed between two consecutive measurements (for roughness and rutting it is the maximum decrease from the immediate past recorded value). Deterioration estimation begins with a minimum of four of the latest data points with the earliest time series data point being the reference for evaluation of the other data points.4 1. A decrease of up to TL over a period of up to two years between two consecutive data points was considered acceptable. 7. Personal use licence only.

A decrease between TL and ML over a period of up to two years between two consecutive data points was considered unacceptable (identified suspected outlier) where the decrease was followed by an increase in distress which remained below the reference data point. An ‘outlier’ is considered a ‘valid’ data point when the difference between the ’outlier’ and the trend line. 9. Personal use licence only. Table B 1: 1 . distribution or use on network prohibited. In this case the reference point was an outlier. which excludes the ‘outlier’.2 years data evaluation from earliest data point Time Figure B 3: Acceptable increase (or deterioration) in observed data (≤ ML) Austroads 2008 — 61 — . 10. is less than or equal to TL (Figure B 8).Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 8. but the sequential point was considered to be valid (Figure B 7). If no deterioration estimation is possible using four ‘valid’ data points. Storage. Assumed maximum and tolerance limits Performance parameter Maximum limit (ML) Tolerance limit (TL) Roughness (NRM) 25 5 Rutting (mm) 5 1 Cracking (%) 15 3 'valid' data point ≤ ML Performance parameter Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. A decrease between TL and ML over a period of up to two years between two consecutive data points was considered unacceptable (identified suspected outlier) where the decrease was followed by an increase in distress above the reference data point (Figure B 6). a less reliable estimate with three ‘valid’ data points is made.

2 years data evaluation from earliest data point suspected outlier Time Figure B 5: Suspected outlier above and below the trend-line (>ML and > TL) Austroads 2008 — 62 — . distribution or use on network prohibited. Personal use licence only.2 years Performance parameter Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.Performance parameter Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 1 . Storage.2 years ≤ TL data evaluation from earliest data point 'valid' data point Figure B 4: Acceptable decrease (or improvement) in observed data (≤ TL) suspected outlier trend line (initially excludes suspected outliers) 1 . Time > ML > TL 1 .

Personal use licence only. distribution or use on network prohibited.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads 'valid' data point ≤ ML Performance parameter reference point trend line (includes 'valid' data points) data evaluation from earliest data point > TL but ≤ ML suspected outlier 1 .2 years Figure B 6: Suspected outlier below the trend line (> TL but ≤ ML) Suspected outlier (& reference point) > TL but ≤ ML Performance parameter Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.2 years 1 . Time trend line (includes 'valid' data points) 'valid' data point data evaluation from earliest data point 1 .2 years 1 . Storage.2 years Time Figure B 7: Suspected outlier above the trend line (> TL but ≤ ML) Austroads 2008 — 63 — ≤ ML .

Time Figure B 8: Suspected outliers compared with the trend line and valid data points decided Austroads 2008 — 64 — .2 years 1 . distribution or use on network prohibited.Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads Performance parameter 'valid' data point > ML > TL Outlier ≤ TL data evaluation from earliest data point > ML trend line (excludes 'valid' data points) ≤ TL 1 . Personal use licence only. Storage.2 years 'valid' data point Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008.

South Australian and New Zealand sealed and asphalt road network. . AP-T97/08 Keywords: Road deterioration (RD). Storage. Queensland. Sydney. sealed and asphalt pavements. RD model calibration. The objective method of estimating deterioration and calibrating HDM-4 roughness. A4. distribution or use on network prohibited. The calibration and refinement of RD models is expected to continue up to 2007/08. Personal use licence only. Tasmanian. It is recommended that this approach be used to analyse performance data from other SRAs in 2007/08 for RD model calibration. Development of HDM-4 Road Deterioration (RD) Model Calibrations for Sealed Granular and Asphalt Roads. rutting and cracking models is presented.INFORMATION RETRIEVAL Austroads. This report presents the outcome of using an objective method to estimate pavement deterioration from the performance history of the Victorian. RD modelling. Pavement performance history data from state road authorities and New Zealand (SRAs) were used for calibrating RD models. rutting and cracking models. Licensed to Dr Graham Salt on 11 Jun 2008. 75pp. Abstract: Improved RD models for sealed granular and asphalt pavements are needed. pavement performance. HDM-4 roughness. 2008.